"Proper use of the firearms board?" Topic

It was my understanding that the firearm board was meant for the discussion of firearms as the relate to wargaming. I take this to mean something like questions such as what are the capabilities of the Baker Rifle or which side did the USArmy issue in the late 1800's. Why is the original intent of the board not being upheld?

My question is why anyone cares? If you don't like it stay out of it, turn the board and your done. There is like two pages on two different posts where people have lost their minds over nothing.

Now, if we could just give AGW its own board that I could turn off…..

Now, if we could just give AGW its own board that I could turn off…..

It was voted down in the past.

The current definition of this board:

For discussion of anything related to firearms.

I need to get more popcorn………..

Be back soon.

People, go paint some soldiers or eradicate your opponent's army and stop worrying about the little things. Have fun. Too much angst simply isn't good for us.

I love this new board!

As I said earlier I have a Ruger LCP 380 which I carry in my pocket for personal protection. I was somewhat surprised to find that the LCP has no safety. I'm very careful of what I put in that pocket now!

I can just see the news! "Man killed by a quarter"

I agree with Private Matter (and others) about this, I think the "relevant to miniatures" rule should apply to the Firearms board. Current politics have nothing to do with miniatures. I can find bitter feuds over irreconcilable differences in outlook just about anywhere these days, but discussions about miniatures and miniature wargaming are still pretty rare.

- Ix

I figure if I don't like it, no one is holding a gun to my head to read it.

It's not about "politics", it's about "firearms", despite some people trying really, really hard to make it about the former, instead of the latter.

Bill,

So a discussion about arming teachers is fair game?

I think you're being a bit stubborn on this. Most reasonably minded folk would probably at least grudgingly admit issues like armed teachers and concealed carry are very political in nature.

No problem for me either way.

"TMP the place where politics are not allowed except on the Firearms board."

I don't care.

Why is this Board in the 18th Century Boards…not kvetching, just asking?

Most reasonably minded folk would probably at least grudgingly admit issues like armed teachers and concealed carry are very political in nature.

Mentioning that you have a concealed carry license, however, is not political. It's legal where he lives.

If people want to impose special rules on the Firearms board, then make a poll suggestion and let the community vote. I would also remind everyone that the community previously voted not to censor gun discussions.

Why is this Board in the 18th Century Boards…not kvetching, just asking?

Because… they used firearms in the 18th Century?

Bill, what utter nonsense. If something not being illegal is the standard, then pretty much any political comments (and a whole lot more besides) must be ok on TMP. It's not illegal to promote totalitarian ideologies, so is that ok?

I thought politics were in the Blue Fez. This is the free exchange of information about guns past and present. The really great thing about it is, if you don't like the discussions, you don't have to read them! Just go somewhere else. Easy Peasy!

Yes, they used firearms in the 18th Century!

"It's not illegal to promote totalitarian ideologies, so is that ok?"

You mean something along the line of; "What I think should be allowed for discussion is all that should be allowed. Not what the site owner or other members want to talk about."

Some people have no self-control.

Cool – Can we have a 'Stoning' board?
Stoning is still legal in parts of the world and is an ancient and medieval weapon (including slings and stone throwing engines).
Not 'Stoners' – before the smart-*bleeps* chime in.

Indeed, what about wife beating? That's legal in some places. Plenty of porn is perfectly legal, so how about that?

You guys are cracking me up. Wife beating and stoning. Keep going.

The other day I stoned some undesirables….

I got mad and…..

Bill, why did you make a board at 19 votes? I thought it was 20. You are all over the place lately.

Snowflakes…shakes head.

Once again, divisive insults for the sake of it.
So anyone who has a differing opinion to you is a snowflake, pzivh43?
None of the responses on this thread even fit that definition.

C&H, I see what you did there…kudos.

There is like two pages on two different posts where people have lost their minds over nothing.

I figure if I don't like it, no one is holding a gun to my head to read it.

Both posts Very true !

This concept that non-miniatures related firearms 'discussions' are only 'political' if those who don't like them say anything is pretty pathetic.

Like it or not you will upset somebody somewhere in almost any 'discussion' beyond the bounds of wargaming or technical aspects.

You don't need a community vote to ask people to be sensible in the topics they start or how they answer them and you don't need a community vote to know that some people will jump in and add their 'opinion' rather than just stick to the subject.

It seems that my post asking a simple question was removed (I know it was there because it was quoted twice) was assumed to be trolling. It wasn't, it was a question, pure and simple.

"I have a concealed carry permit." is a statement about a political topic. (I don't. But I could. Or maybe not. This is the Internet and you have no way to check on it.)

"I have a concealed carry permit and XYZ jurisdiction is dumb for not allowing it." is a political statement. Different from a statement on a political topic.

"ABC jurisdiction allows a concealed carry permit under TUV conditions." is a statement on a political topic and only tangentially related to wargaming (it is related to the modeling referent for arms in a specific location). But probably no moreso than "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon had some cool, cinematic marital arts stuff in it."

Interestingly, posting dozens of complaints and counter arguments about a set of two or three tangentially related to wargaming posts keeps it at the top of the board for weeks. Ignoring it drops it out of view rapidly. Hitting the complaint button does not bump the thread.

Political, and American Political. No reason why the issues of current gun control arguments should be placed on here, unless you want to debate the most effective way to mow down unarmed and cowering schoolkids!

Think of it this way
I own a 1911 as well as as a replica of a Brown Bess,both which I shoot. Many at another site gun thread have many firearms previously used in wars they shoot and carry daily.
It's only politics to some people, others do see it as a American right in the constitution

Mentioning that you have a concealed carry license, however, is not political. It's legal where he lives.

It also isn't relevant to miniatures or wargaming, and the resulting conversations veer predictably into current politics (and then into mockery and then into interpersonal feuding and then into flame wars… etc.). Current firearms licensing is an inherently politicized topic.

The creation of a separate Firearms board necessitates that I look there for information relevant to wargaming, so I can't block it. I really don't care if people discuss (or flame each other about) contemporary politics or firearms licensing laws on TMP, I would just rather it were isolated to boards dedicated to political discussions (or flame wars) so I wasn't forced to sort through it to find the conversations worth reading. This kind of toleration-by-isolation of off-topic banter is boiler-plate, bog-standard practice in forums across the Internet.

- Ix

"……unless you want to debate the most effective way to mow down unarmed and cowering schoolkids!".

So, we're also not permitted to talk about trucks and other vehicles too?

@Thresher01

So I can't talk about my F-150 now? Jeeze…

It also isn't relevant to miniatures or wargaming, and the resulting conversations veer predictably into current politics (and then into mockery and then into interpersonal feuding and then into flame wars… etc.). Current firearms licensing is an inherently politicized topic.

It was posted on the Ultramodern board, and it is relevant to the availability of firearms within that genre. It's tangential, but no more tangential than many other discussions within a genre.

It's only predictably going to veer into political discussion if you assume one, the other, or both sides lack the discipline to add a political statement to a non-political discussion.

The creation of a separate Firearms board necessitates that I look there for information relevant to wargaming, so I can't block it.

No, it doesn't. I objected to it potentially doing that, but it doesn't. Wargaming related posts about firearms were not wholesale deleted from most of the genre specific boards, so if they are on and the Firearms board is off, you don't see it in the compilation view.

I couldn't care less about people who can't avoid politicizing a discussion. Nor do I really care about a small number of off-topic posts creeping into genre focused discussions – in this case (subjective determination of degree) when you clamp down on Type I error (false positives – threads that appear where they shouldn't) you raise Type II error (threads that don't appear where they should). I'd rather live with some Type I than risk significant Type II.

That said, if the Firearms board were the only place to find genre relevant firearms discussions, I would not like to have to meander through gun discussions in genres where I have no interest to find ones relevant for which I do have interest. That's not the Type I/Type II challenge, it's about the taxonomic organization of information.

With reading Etotheipi's post I wondered how I'd got to see the CCL thread as I had the whole modern board deselected.

So I went to check and realised that any new board added seems to automatically get selected for you, even if you have no other interests related to that period/genre.

At least now I know how to avoid that type of posting now.

It does seem the wrong way round to me, I'd have thought having to join a new board would make more sense than to have to actively turn off a topic that you probably ignored while it was being discussed and added.

I wondered how I'd got to see the CCL thread as I had the whole modern board deselected.

It's because the Firearms board is not just Moderns, but goes back to Renaissance.

Guns have been so prevalent across the world in so many forms and shapes, that we could discuss it in every possible detail for many years without even a single mention of politics.

Agreed !

"Current firearms licensing is an inherently politicized topic".

Only to those that dislike the US Constitution as written, and 2nd Amendment rights for all citizens of the USA.

"Politicized" is defined as "to give a political tone or character to."

This means the topic doesn't intrinsically have a political tone or character, it is being given one. Firearms are not inherently political, so stop making them so.

At the end of the day, everyone crying that it's not fair or it doesn't belong need to remember one thing, this is Bill's board. He makes the rules. He pays the bills. If you don't like it, you can stop reading it, you can stop supporting the page, and you can stop visiting the page. You could even take your hard earned money and start your own board with your own rules.

No one is forced to read any posts or threads or to visit TMP …

@Thresher01

Wishful thinking dude. It's all political.

I began playing with toy soldiers when I was 4, about the time in early 1941 that Dad started taking me with him to his job – projectionist at one of the 3 local movie houses.

I confess that in the years since I have paid very little attention to weapons in general.

There is much I would like to know about – for instance – how…

1. A Prussian musket might not be as good at the French Charleville in the Napoleonic Wars.
2. Just what were the guns – calibers, etc – and composition of the US Flying Artillery in the Mexican War.
3. How effective as Mexican infantry musketry and artillery during the Mexican War, vs the US. Was there a standard musket for each side?

Etc.

GdeP

From "The Courier", V.IX, No. 6, The Mexican Army by Ron Vaughan:

The India Pattern Brown Bess was the most commonly used musket although others were also issued. Baker rifles armed the rifle companies of infantry battalions.

"…In comparison with the American Army, the Mexicans were at a great disadvantage in firepower… at Resaca de la Palma it took sixteen Mexicans to kill or wound one American. On the other had there were four Americans for every Mexican hit… At Monterrey the defenses and artillery doubled the Mexican effectiveness to 1:7 and the attacking Americans were reduced to 1:16…"

"The great difference in Mexican fire effectiveness, ranging from 1:16 to 1:4, can be explained by examining the circumstances of the battles. The battle of Resaca de la Palma was basically a skirmish type of battle fought in open order. The random firing of the Mexicans would have been particularly ineffective against dispersed targets… at Casa Mata the defenders were veterans, firing with weapons rested on the parapet; and the attackers were in close order on open ground. These were optimum circumstances for effective fire. Taking the mean between these two extremes, it seems reasonable to estimate the effectiveness of the average Mexican soldier was about 1:10…"

"… Thus, in an even fire fight, the American infantry had about a 2:1 fire superiority over the Mexican infantry…"

Hope this helps.

Because… they used firearms in the 18th Century? grin

Hey being a smart a** is my schtick!!

LOL!

I moved to PA from Texas 4 years ago, and still have not gotten to much of my stuff in storage. I bought an Osprey booklet at the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas, that alleged the for some reason the Mexican infantry OVERloaded their muskets, and avoided firing from the shoulder. They preferred to fire from the waist. Good only when going in with the bayonet.

One the other hand, their artillery units did not use enough gun powder compared to the Americans, leaving them at another severe disadvantage.

GdeP

LOL!
gunviolencearchive.org

Bandolier-

Why do you find that site funny?