Gods. I hope you Europeans, Asians, Australians, South Americans, literally the entire rest of the globe shun and constantly remind these US carriers how silly and unacceptable this whole thing is. Especially all the military and gun-users who actually have had training and know how dangerous this is.

2 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

But that aside, let's anecdotically talk Xwing again. So, you brought your firearm to a tournament venue. You're a skilled professional in penetrating paper thug outlines on the shooting range and aluminium cans in your backyard. Tell me sir, in the tournament environment where more often than not we bump each other's elbows and buts one table next to another: can you really dare to promise that under actual sudden life thread you'd be so calm, so steady, and so coordinated to hit the aggressor? Do you dare to promise EVERYONE in the venue you won't miss them by an inch? You won't drop dead your friend standing next to the thug? Or some kid whom father took them to their first tournament together on this day? Have you ever been any closer to your death than having a cold to be so ******ed sure how will you behave in danger? And that you're not going to be a threat to people you think you are going to be the defender of?

If people are that close, why would I take the shot? Rule 4 of firearm safety: "Be aware of what is around and beyond your target."

2 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

See mate, I totally understand you might have the most valid reasons to have a gun for self defense. This is because anything but a gun will be a subpar weapon when against a gun. But the only reason you'll be facing a gun is because the other guy has a right to prepare for the case you'd defend yourself with a gun. You have guns, because you need guns, because you have guns. And I. Get. It. What I don't get is how any sane one of you could argue this ridiculous deadlock is a preferable situation and not support any movement that would drag you out of this impasse. How?

Maybe some would argue that the reason we need guns is a response to guns, but my argument is that guns are the most effective means of stopping a threat regardless of how that threat is armed . This is because other weapons are reliant on a person's own strength, while a gun is based on chemical energy. In the case of two people with knives, the one who is stronger or who even just has longer arms and therefore longer reach, has an advantage. With guns, someone who's bigger and stronger may have a slight advantage, but it's much, much less. Guns are, as they have been called before, an equalizer in that sense.

In short, unless you happen to be one of the stronger ones who could dominate through strength, it seems to me it would always be preferable to be armed with a gun, even if your opponent is armed with a gun, too.

1 hour ago, xwingMinty said:

I do get a part of that; I wouldn't like to be a judge that has to deal with someone with a gun, but even if it's the venue that has the rule (and not FFG) then judges will have to be the people dealing with it.

Not necessarily. If the store owner bans firearms on his property, depending on where he is, that could well be a legal issue and a matter for the police; not the judges.

5 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Guns are, as they have been called before, an equalizer in that sense.

Well kinda, they really just massively favour the person who decides to act first.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

If people are that close, why would I take the shot? Rule 4 of firearm safety: "Be aware of what is around and beyond your target."

I think a problem is that while you could be the world’s most responsible open or concealed carrier, it’s not terribly hard to get licensed or purchase a gun in many places. Though you personally may not be a threat, there are probably people out there who should not be bringing guns to X-Wing events. The law may have a lot to say about threatening language, brandishing, and so on, but a fat lot of good that is going to do for someone who already has a bullet in them. And it should not and cannot be the store owner, TO or FFG’s responsibility to vet everyone intending to bring a gun to an event.

I’m sorry, but irresponsible gun havers have ruined it for the rest of you (and ruined a whole lot of other things for the rest of us).

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

If people are that close, why would I take the shot? Rule 4 of firearm safety: "Be aware of what is around and beyond your target."

Maybe some would argue that the reason we need guns is a response to guns, but my argument is that guns are the most effective means of stopping a threat regardless of how that threat is armed . This is because other weapons are reliant on a person's own strength, while a gun is based on chemical energy. In the case of two people with knives, the one who is stronger or who even just has longer arms and therefore longer reach, has an advantage. With guns, someone who's bigger and stronger may have a slight advantage, but it's much, much less. Guns are, as they have been called before, an equalizer in that sense.

In short, unless you happen to be one of the stronger ones who could dominate through strength, it seems to me it would always be preferable to be armed with a gun, even if your opponent is armed with a gun, too.

Um. There's this thing, might have heard of it. The arms race?

I believe 'a gun' came quite early in that. Weirdly, things did not equalize at that point.

As much as I think this thread should probably be locked away, part of me does want those of us on the "dont just shoot people" train to be able to continue driving it forward.

“No one loves the warrior... until the enemy is at the gate”

I mean, it's been like 3 years now...

25 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

I mean, it's been like 3 years now...

Hey, the white house is not the gate, so technically...

It boils down to this.

In the USA it's a constitutional right to bear arms.

Pretty much everywhere else doesn't have them. At least so publicly anyway.

So for the majority of us, guns being anywhere, let alone near tables full of plastic ships, is beyond strange.

I get the impression we're not going get anywhere on the gun ownership debate.

So what's the point in continuing? I'm from the UK, and I think it's crazy to have a firearm. Others will disagree.

1 hour ago, astronautcowboy said:

And it should not and cannot be the store owner, TO or FFG’s responsibility to vet everyone intending to bring a gun to an event.

No one is saying it is. However, we have two options: assume everyone is untrustworthy until they prove otherwise (which, in practice, will ultimately be never, as any time a terrible incident happens we'll just move the goal further and further away), or else assume everyone is trustworthy until they prove otherwise, usually in a most horrible way.

As I've stated before, I see measures like this one merely improving the appearance of safety rather than actually improving safety. Therefore, since I believe that both approaches are going to end up having bad incidents any which way, I personally prefer the second option, where at least people are free to prepare for such events in the manner of their own choosing.

1 hour ago, Cuz05 said:

Um. There's this thing, might have heard of it. The arms race?

I believe 'a gun' came quite early in that. Weirdly, things did not equalize at that point.

Actually, the role of the individual soldier did equalize quite a bit with the introduction of guns. Prior to that, warfare was often decided by the strength and size of the soldiers. Weapon and armor advancements existed, but you still needed troops training for years if they wanted to use bows or spears effectively.

With gunpowder, a man's physical size still counted for something in melee, or in certain roles, but it was now greatly overshadowed by his weapon. Yes, the arms race continued, but there was a definite change in focus at that point.

10 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I   personally  prefer the second option, where at least people are free to prepare for such events in    the manner of their own choosing.  

You must have numbers on the effectiveness of your choice to support and make that one. I'm actually curious to know.

Come on @ mods, close this thread.

Leave the Americans to discuss the in and outs of something the rest of us find ridiculous.

I’m just super impressed that this has been such a long thread. I get a guilty pleasure every time I read/post 😂