"Firearms Board added" Topic

There seems to be some unintended irony here.

The board was proposed so that people who were offended by discussion of guns could 'turn off' that part of TMP.

And now some of those same people are offended because the board exists? It only exists because of you.

Since when have we been so totally unable to talk about controversial topics without referring to it using terms like "gun porn" and people who support opposing views as "deniers".
Seems the only people who are getting all enraged on this topic are the strident anti-gun folk. I mean, a goodly portion of the members of TMP are Americans and we ARE talking about a little document that is central to the Democratic Republic that has become the United States of America. This is Amendement II, to The Bill of Rights, a principal component of the U.S. Constitution. I think a little respect is due here!!

This is FUN! beer & pork rinds Torquemada

I like it, snarky and cynical, you're my kinda guy, cept I prefer pretzels

I'm probably headed for the dawghouse for all my editorializing tonight but all this talk about anti-gun and global warming is hitting a raw nerve with me. This is why I even turned off FOX News.

Rather poor form to have it appear on everyone's pages in the first place without a general announcement.

Since we've never done that before, why would we do it in this case?

And what is so alarming about a board discussing firearms, containing the same topics which have always been allowed on TMP?

There seem to be a few people who are over-reacting to what they think might happen in the future on this board, when they can easily turn it off. Although it would seem that most wargamers would have some interest in the discussion of pistols, rifles, muskets, etc.

I'm with Torquemada on this.

Finally, a bit of high-spirited, frantic, discussion on a new topic here on TMP.

Perhaps we should come up with some other controversial boards too, in order to further increase the click count.

Nappy's are just WH 40K with different figs, or vice versa?

Okay, there's mine.

What's your suggestion for keeping this going?

Who knew so many "wargamers" would be so anti-gun, and/or anti-2nd Amendment?

EXCELLENT!!!

Actually Bill, there appear to be members to whom even the thought of firearms in the hands of the public causes distress and discussion of that is a problem. Frankly even the discussion of the capabilities of various firearms appears to trigger revulsion.

Actually Bill, there appear to be members to whom even the thought of firearms in the hands of the public causes distress and discussion of that is a problem. Frankly even the discussion of the capabilities of various firearms appears to trigger revulsion.

Which is why this board was created, so they could 'turn off' those discussions. Even though we don't seem to have the kind of topics they dread… just stuff about muskets vs rifles, endless discussions of rifle grenades, and latest Army kit.

"I think having this section public at any point is the waving a flag for groups I do not support or condone. the mere presence of such a forum means I will not ever subsidize this website with money, even though I recently contemplated ponying up. This has changed my mind."

LOL!!! How many times have I seen some variation of this message. "I was just about to give you money, but you did something to upset me so now I'm not."

"gun porn"
"right wing gun nuts"

I find it amazing how upset people get by a DISCUSSION of something they don't like.

I don't think we're allowed to use the term, and this isn't directed at anyone, but I can see where the term 'snowflake' came from.

I really don't understand those who argue that children are about to be led down to hell by something discussed here.

First, we don't really have that many children on TMP, as far as I can tell. (It's the internet, it's hard to tell.)

But, second, are you really afraid that if some child reads about the Air Force getting a new pistol, that it will impel him on a life of gun collecting? And isn't gun collecting a perfectly legal hobby in many places?

By the same argument, you could say that any discussion of wargaming could lead a child to – horror of horrors! – join the military! And TMP would be at fault!

And you know, when we play games, we roll dice. Who else rolls dice? Gamblers roll dice. So playing wargames must inevitably lead to gambling addiction!

Don't forget the NSFW board (or whatever we call it nowadays). Everyone knows that if you see a nude woman in 28mm, it leads you straight to Playboy and sex addition and desperate loneliness.

And some of you actually game with Confederate armies! Nazi armies! We're all going to hell, I tell you…

Bill, you are seriously missing the point. Talking about gun "rights" in the modern world is political in a way that talking about a reenactor's musket is not. If the new board is confined to discussions of firearms in a military context, then I doubt that anyone is likely to have a problem with that. However, we've already seen it used to promote gun "rights". I do not think that telling people to turn off the board is the answer. There will be some members and advertisers unhappy with the idea of supporting TMP if it allows the sorts of political material that we are already seeing.

The content may also create problems for people who wish to game in schools, universities and public facilities. They already risk being excluded as "war mongers". How much hope would they have if gun "rights" material on TMP comes to the attention of the PC crowd?

In any event, if you are going to allow this sort of political material, where are you going to draw the line?

Well AussieAndy, as I noted in my earlier post, there was even discussion of where to buy a firearm on TMP in the past. All without a single complaint.

Of course back in the day a certain percentage of the population hadn't decided that public discussion and items in public view had to be sanitized of any possible topic that might cause concern.

Bill, et al. You are missing the point.

The American gun culture is at odds with most of the developed world. You proudly wave 250 year old amendments and 'rights' but they mean nothing to anyone else.

Discussing what weapons have been used throughout history and what latest weapons are being used by modern military is different to saying, "Hey guys, guess what I'm packing, y'all!"

How is that in scope of TMP?

Is anyone actually contending that gun "rights" is not a political issue? Surely even those who trumpet about the second amendment don't seriously contend that it is not a controversial issue. If politics is not off limits on TMP, can we now post about any political issue that we want? Can I post about the outcome of Australia's election last Saturday? Can fascists or communists promote their agendas? There are reasons why you avoid topics like politics and religion in polite company. I've always thought of TMP as a place to get away from politics and commune with wargamers. I do not feel comfortable about supporting a forum where the gun lobby has free rein and I'm obviously not the only one.

I have an interest in the firearms used in the conflicts that I game, and in the past, I have enjoyed target shooting, though haven't done it in many years.

I have two concerns with this board.

The first is that posts relating to a specific periods and relating to firearms may end up being moved to this board, and could be removed from the period specific board that I might post them to, meaning that those who shut off this board will miss them, and thus TMP members may miss out on gaming related posts and discussion. I personally may miss out on potential answers to gaming related questions, potentially reducing the utility and scope of, possibly, the main attraction of TMP, the collective knowledge of the membership.

The second is that the scope of this board, given the discussion here, and in the first post that popped up when I clicked on the board, will entice people to post relating to conservative or liberal biases relating to guns and not about weapons as they relate to gaming, or not even about firearms themselves. And given the nature of such posts, it means that I will have to read through posts that I find personally offensive, and possibly posted with the intent to offend, which reduces the attraction and utility of TMP to me as a member.

So, my concern is that the addition of this board will (and has already) reduced the quality of my experience on TMP, as it diffuses and potentially hides on topic discussion, and it increases the likelihood that I will come here in a pleasant mood, and leave in a bad one.

One of these two things has already happened as a result of the presence of this board. I don't think it is a constructive addition to TMP.

Dang! This has been great fun!!!

OMG! Will nobody think of the children?

On a serious note, I have no horse in this particular race, hence my "Beer & Scratchings" post yesterday ,-)

I just thought I'd point out that there is a precedent for "serious" firearms discussion on wargaming & miniatures sites: Dakka (a hugely popular site) has a permanent firearms thread in its OT forum that's been running pretty smoothly for 6 years now (albeit after a previous version was locked for …"reasons"…).

The rules are very simple: no politics and don't be a .

It ranges from blackpowder to ultramodern and gets very, very technical in there, from gunsmithing, mods and DIY ammo to legal aspects, optics and buying/selling.

And guess what? It actually works :-)

Sure, the majority of posters in that specific thread are US-based, but by far not everyone.

If people could just avoid "advocating" and/or "opposing", and instead discuss whatever they want to discuss or ask questions about "maturely", I don't really see why it couldn't work here as well?

+1 Torquemada …

If just seeing, reading, etc., about/discussing a topic that will lead a tiny minority to become "violent". We shouldn't let anyone watch most action movies or even military documentaries …

Just to be sure …

And once again for all those afraid of the big bad gun, don't read the or go to the new board it's pretty simple.

Bill,
Sometimes you manage things well, other times so so, and occasionally terribly. This is one of your worst.

The first topic proves the point. A thread about concealed carry has almost nothing to do with wargaming.

I thought the board would be about discussing the evolution of assault rifles, development of new carbines for our armed forces, and the reasons why the machine gun changed the battlefield.

Did you know that the Americans used 50 cals mounted on wooden platforms to bombard the enemy in Italy? That kind of stuff.

If you wanted the board you should have just said "I created it because I want it." You shadow changed the rules then now seem to be completely daft to the fact that your 'no politics' rules is being challenged and perhaps violated.

Take it for what its worth I think you duffed this one.

p.s. One should know where I sit before I stand. I'm completely comfortable with concealed carry permits. In fact I think there should be a Federal law and standards for state reciprocity.

The first topic proves the point. A thread about concealed carry has almost nothing to do with wargaming.

EXACTLY…I'm so GLAD that is wandering around, ARMED and comfortable with this after, apparently, not taking a concealed carry course.

But Ethics be Damned!

I Fully SUPPORT the US Constitution AND the 2nd Amendment, (though SENSIBLE gun laws and restrictions would be nice), but the first posting out of the block was about being snuggy comfy with carrying a concealed weapon about.

Sorry…

I've had my say…knock yourselves out!

PS – I (and most probably others) wouldn't have had a Cow over this IF the damn post hadn't just popped up in my/our news feeds.

Which again, is on YOU, Bill!

Giving people a courteous Heads Up first so that they knew this was going to appear and could opt out immediately without the Brouhaha that is now attending your STUNT is your fault, but as always… you will take no responsibility for it!

+1 PrivateSnafu Bill can you not see these things coming? It may very well be a Banana republic, but you're the king without constitution.

I suspect this board was required to take some of the heat off the Napoleonics boards.

How is that in scope of TMP?

What was changed? Nothing, except the location of certain topics. Forum rules themselves have not changed.

can you not see these things coming?

One guy shares his happiness about getting a license, where's the harm?

the Brouhaha

Six people disgruntled on social media does not rise to the level of a brouhaha.

You shadow changed the rules…

Wasn't a shadow change, I mentioned it a few polls ago. I even let a new board go for only 19 votes.

I thought the board would be about discussing the evolution of assault rifles, development of new carbines for our armed forces, and the reasons why the machine gun changed the battlefield.

A quick check of the topics on this board would support those expectations.

The most shocking thing is that Thresher's post stating that, "Nappy's are just WH 40K with different figures" was allowed to pass unchallenged.

Looks like we need a safe space board…

Vince for the win.

I wonder how some people manage to get through their day with all these micro-traumas.

I think you're missing the point entirely, Dr. X et al.

Firsty, there is no reason to be insulting and demeaning to those who have a different opinion to yourself. You're just adding to the divisiveness amongst what should be a friendly group of wargamers.

More to the point perhaps, the main argument is the relevance to wargaming, and the potential of certain topics, immediately proven, to descend into bickering and doghouse potential.

Nobody here is traumatized, or needs a safe space. That's just being insulting for the sake of it.

Yeah, yeah, don't like it, don't read it, blah, blah…

I knew we could get a good comment from Legion 4, and Irish Marine, please check my response to you on the other Board, I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I am NOT anti-gun I've owned guns, yes multiple, since I was 12, and that was a helluva long time ago. I just recently got my CCA only because it became necessary to be able to produce such documentation if you have a gun. Oh, and BTW I recently got pulled over for driving a wee bit over the posted speed limit. I handed the officer my license AND my CCA, he asked if I was carrying, I said yes sir, he asked where, I pointed to my briefcase, he said thank you sir, please watch your speed and have a nice day. Do ya think it helped? (smile)

Bill, maybe ignorance was bliss, but I didn't know that there was gun lobby material on TMP before the new board was inaugurated.

You have failed to respond to the questions raised in my previous post. All that you have done is to belittle and sneer at some of the folk that make you money. If you think that that is a good business model, good luck with that. You have also failed to acknowledge that there are folk here on both sides of the gun debate who don't want the issue on TMP because it is inherently political and has so much scope for division and acrimony. Maybe too just a little insensitive to those who, like me, have lost someone they cared about to gun violence?

So, are we now free to talk about all political matters? If not, please tell us where the otherwise invisible line is to be found.

For the record, I am not totally anti-gun. I come from a line of farmers and hunters, all of whom had guns, but they seemed to get by with bolt action rifles and double-barrelled shotguns, rather than assault rifles.

No one has assault rifles in the US except the Armed Forces or Police.

Irish Marine is right. The general public seems to think that the civilian version of the "assault rifles" available are the same as the military versions. They may look similar but they are not the same weapons.

"Giving people a courteous Heads Up first so that they knew this was going to appear and could opt out immediately without the Brouhaha that is now attending your STUNT is your fault, but as always… you will take no responsibility for it!"

Yes Bill. Please protect us from seeing something we disagree with.

"Maybe too just a little insensitive to those who, like me, have lost someone they cared about to gun violence? "

Ah, the ultimate argument; "I'm a victim, so I get veto power over everyone else." Followed by the obligatory, "I agree with the Second Amendment, but with the restrictions I think should be on it."

Let's see if I can trump your victimhood. In my years as a police officer I've been to about a dozen funerals. All my brothers in arms. About half of these men, oddly all were men, were killed by a bad guy with a gun. This doesn't include a buddy of mine killed in combat when I couldn't do anything to save him.

So, since I can now claim tangential victimhood, which one of us gets to decide what everyone else can talk about?

I appreciate the comments of the pro-gun folk who can see that this is a political issue which should have no place on TMP. To all the rest of the gun lobby, your comments demonstrate why facts and logic will never change your views (23 years and counting since Australia had a mass public shooting after our (conservative) government introduced gun restrictions after the Port Arthur massacre). The Firearms Board should not be a forum for the gun lobby if TMP is to be a forum where all gamers can be comfortable.

Bill, your lack of response to the questions raised is truly pitiful.

Dn Jackson, if, as a police officer, you don't support gun control, then I have zero sympathy for you with respect to the number of funerals that you've attended.

If the Founding Fathers really did intend the second amendment to mean what the gun lobby claims and that is somehow sacrosanct, then I assume that you'll be consistent and campaign to reintroduce slavery and take the vote from women.

Alright, I switched the board off, using the editor's suggested link, but I am still seeing it on the TMP homepage. Might there be some incomplete coding?

The general public seems to think that the civilian version of the "assault rifles" available are the same as the military versions. They may look similar but they are not the same weapons.

Yes, I have an AR-15 it is semi-auto only. It not full-auto like the M16 I carried in the Army.

Of course some don't realize that generally full auto is used for suppressive fires or in closed terrain, e.g. in a room or trench, etc. But generally full auto is not as effective as semi-auto in most situations. Most full auto rounds don't hit what you are shooting at.

IMO, if you are not an American citizen, why should it matter what American Gun Owners say, think or do here ? We're on a website … Regardless of what the guy on the other end of the net is "packing" or not.

Again, if the title of a topic or board does not interest you … don't click on it.

Yes Bill. Please protect us from seeing something we disagree with.

Yes … please !

So, since I can now claim tangential victimhood, which one of us gets to decide what everyone else can talk about?

Very good point …

"If the Founding Fathers really did intend the second amendment to mean what the gun lobby claims and that is somehow sacrosanct, then I assume that you'll be consistent and campaign to reintroduce slavery and take the vote from women."

Seriously? These issues were resolved by the 13th and 19th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If any U.S. citizens find the 2nd amendment a problem, there is a procedure to repeal it, but I doubt that anyone is willing to touch that third rail.

@AussieAndy, As a Federal serving law enforcement official I've seen more people killed with blunt weapons, stabbing weapons and cutting weapons and the big one cars. People like you keep bringing up mass shootings, yes, they suck but most or all could have been avoided if there had been a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with the gun. Gun deaths don't even register on the CDC's top ten causes of death. Guys like you are very strange to me, you are concerned by gun deaths in one spot but not deaths spread out in a year, IE death by car accidents which are far more numerous.

Khanscom the problem is Putin wouldn't let us.

Alright, I switched the board off, using the editor's suggested link, but I am still seeing it on the TMP homepage. Might there be some incomplete coding?

Probably not.

This is why I didn't agree with this board as a solution to "people don't want to see threads on guns". This topic is cross-posted to TMP Talk, so if you have either of those board checked, this thread will appear on your front page.

If I don't want to read posts about the US Constitution by people who apparently haven't read it, I just skip by. That's a solution.

AussieAndy, you seem to be inable to hear what I am saying.

I didn't know that there was gun lobby material on TMP before the new board was inaugurated.

There has been a minuscule amount of pro-gun and anti-gun content over the years, and if it didn't bother you before, why does it bother you now?

You have also failed to acknowledge that there are folk here on both sides of the gun debate who don't want the issue on TMP…

As I have repeatedly said, we have voted on this before as a community, and it was decided not to prohibit such discussions.

And to repeat myself once more, if you want a change in the rules, please make a proposal on the Poll Suggestions board and let the community decide.

Alright, I switched the board off, using the editor's suggested link, but I am still seeing it on the TMP homepage.

If a topic is posted to more than one board, you might see it on your homepage even if you have unsubbed from one of those boards. For example, this specific topic is posted to both Firearms and TMP Talk boards.

I think that you mean "unable" Bill.

Your points are just bizarre.

How could I have not been bothered about gun lobby material on TMP when, as I've said, I was unaware of it. Unaware is not the same as not bothered.

I haven't seen any poll results in favour of allowing political material. In particular, I've seen nothing in favour of allowing TMP to be used by the gun lobby to promote their agenda.

You still have failed to address where the line is supposed to now be drawn on political material. As folk besides myself have pointed out, saying that it is ok because it is legal is just nonsense. Can I promote the universal adoption of sharia law because it is the law in some countries? Can I propose that gay people be persecuted because that is legal in some countries?

Ok, I might make a poll suggestion, but I'm unsure as to why It is up to me to address the issue of your own gross breach of your own rules by allowing current politics on TMP.

How could I have not been bothered about gun lobby material on TMP when, as I've said, I was unaware of it. Unaware is not the same as not bothered.

That's my point. If it didn't bother you then, why do imaginary future topics bother you now?

I haven't seen any poll results in favour of allowing political material. In particular, I've seen nothing in favour of allowing TMP to be used by the gun lobby to promote their agenda.

AussieAndy, I don't know how to be clearer. The TMP community has voted previously not to censor discussion of gun control laws. I am not aware that any 'gun lobby' even exists on TMP, but we have members with differing viewpoints who have expressed themselves in the past. (Mal used to go on rants against guns, a few years back.) If you want to change it, make a poll suggestion. If you are not sure how to word it, drop me a PM in advance.

…why It is up to me to address the issue of your own gross breach of your own rules by allowing current politics on TMP.

Isn't it axiomatic that the rulegiver is the expert on the rules? You can make the same argument about global warming being political, but TMP has voted repeatedly not to censor global warming discussion.

"Dn Jackson, if, as a police officer, you don't support gun control, then I have zero sympathy for you with respect to the number of funerals that you've attended"

You obviously, and deliberately, didn't get my point. I'll add that I find it amazing how little some people don't care for the safety of others. I've been to several calls where an armed civilian was able to protect themselves and their loved ones. The old saying is, 'When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.'

"To all the rest of the gun lobby, your comments demonstrate why facts and logic will never change your views (23 years and counting since Australia had a mass public shooting after our (conservative) government introduced gun restrictions after the Port Arthur massacre)."

Which is a good thing. However, consider these facts which are often overlooked whenever anyone mentions the 1996 gun ban:

Since 1996 the United States assault rate has dropped by 43.6 percent. Australia's assault numbers have increased by 150 percent.

Since 1996, the United States forcible rape rate has fallen by 36.5%, while Australia's sexual assault numbers are up by 22%.

Since 1996, the United States robbery rates have consistently fallen, by a total of 46%. Oz? The official robbery rates soared immediately after the Howard regime's gun control laws, but now the official, and heavily edited, robbery rate has fallen by an extremely unimpressive 12.2 percent.

While the surge in Australia's crime rate cannot be attributed solely to the gun confiscation, a great part of it can be. This includes the fact that Australia had to invent a law to cover home invasion, something that didn't happen before the ban because the bad guys now know they can enter an innocent person's home without fear of anything happening to them.

+1 Dn Jackson

And as also noted as many LEOs I know have said too. Many of the shootings are bad guy on bad guy. E.g. much of what happens in many inner cities/urban areas.

If the drug dealers, gangbangers, etc., kill each other off. It is not really too "upsetting" to most LEOs. Of course very sadly there is, at times, innocents killed/collateral damage happens in the cross-fires, etc.

Regardless criminals generally will always be able to get fire arms. Usually illegally. So those "undesirables" will always be armed.

[Is it not PC to call drug dealers and gangbangers "undesirables" ? ]

I once moved into what was called a "high violent crime" area on the police blotter. (I checked before moving in.) Since I actually looked into it instead of just looking at the top level numbers I found two main archetypes of violent crimes in the area:

- Sailor comes home from deployment. Finds wife in bed with best friend. Shoots best friend.
- Sailor comes home from deployment. Finds husband in bed with best friend. Stabs husband.

I figured if I wasn't sleeping with some other sailor's wife or husband, I was probably at no more risk than anywhere else.

Legion 4,

I think you are safe enough calling drug dealers 'undesirables'. Unless you want to buy some drugs…

Oh, and are you sure you meant 'gangbangers' and not 'gangsters'? Unless US usage is different, they engage in very different activities!

Thank you Cerdic … but no I get all my Meds from the Veteran's Administration …

Well note I said "drug dealers, gangbangers, etc." So I believe "gangstas" are included in there. As well as US gangsters/the Mob/the Mafia/Organized Crime, e.g. Tony Soprano … they are included as well …

And once again for all those afraid of the big bad gun, don't read the or go to the new board it's pretty simple.

It has nothing to do with TMP topics. It's a current affairs topic therefore it belongs in the Blue Fez. This is all silly nonsense.

But, carry on. Nothing said here or on this board in particular has any relevance or impact.