6 minutes ago, Kehl_Aecea said:

This thread in a nutshell:

I feel bad for @Hiemfire that his genuine PSA thread has been hijacked.

7 hours ago, JJ48 said:

So,

"There's a potential for a dangerous situation to exist, so I'll take a precaution even though I'll probably never need it" = paranoid psycho

while

"Everyone who has a gun in public is a murderous powderkeg just waiting to go off" = rational individual

?

The problem is this: the only person in the world who could somehow predict whether you're an adrenaline-junkie-psycho weapon carrier or a law-obeying-guardian weapon carrier - is you. And even you can't be certain you wouldn't misjudge somebody else's behaviour, falsely accuse them of being danger to you, and wound or kill an innocent fellow man. This happens to trained law-enforcement officer so sure as **** can happen to you. You sir, are in no position to decide whether or not someone should have to loose their life based on your belief about their intentions.

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?

Even if you are, and I do hope you are if you really carry around a device with no other purpose but to kill, how can my friends around you be sure about it? How can the father of that kid behind your to-be target be sure you're not the freak-one in the room?

Well, they can't, of course. You carry around your pew-pew just in case of some lunatic guy with a gun, but now you're just another possibly lunatic guy with a gun other people now have to just-in-case themselves against. And the problem escalates, of course, now they're the guy.

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?

Here, Europe, we walk the streets and live our lives guns free and no, we don't plan our yearly budget around two robberies a year when we couldn't defend ourselves with a pistol. Petty thugs going after your wallet or new TV can't afford black market weapons, really. And if Mafia wants you dead, not even a gatling gun will help you out.

TL:DR - buy yourself a ******* taser and bring THAT to the tournament so I won't have to **** my pants scared you can shoot me in the head by accident.

2 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

TL:DR - buy yourself a ******* taser and bring THAT to the tournament so I won't have to **** my pants scared you can shoot me in the head by accident.

ECDs ("Tazers", Stun Guns (the handheld device that arcs across a couple of studs, nfc why they call it a gun), etc.) are considered weapons, so...

Just now, Hiemfire said:

ECDs ("Tazers", Stun Guns (the handheld device that arcs across a couple of studs, nfc why they call it a gun), etc.) are considered weapons, so...

Yeah, but if the "carriers" community really can't stand the feeling of void, emptiness and being naked against the violent world around them - if their personal values won't allow them to find themselves unarmed - at least tazer is unlikely to kill someone who doesn't deserve to be killed. After all, what these lawful carriers want is just not to be killed, not to kill, so what's the difference to them?

Has there been some mass outbreak of gun waving at tournaments that I am unaware of that has provoked this rule?

1 hour ago, Archangelspiv said:

I feel bad for @Hiemfire that his genuine PSA thread has been hijacked.

I mean - there is not much more to be said about this document, I suppose? Discussion about what should be the X in "X-th warning gets you a game lose" isn't exactly absorbing.

What I am concerned with is what's the community's stance on carrying deadly force around me at tournament time.

Sorry, but not so sorry.

Just now, powersink said:

Has there been some mass outbreak of gun waving at tournaments that I am unaware of that has provoked this rule?

No, just a couple dozens in shools, public areas, streets, and local community neighborhood events... Over a year? But I can't tell them all, since gun violence in the US doesn't even make it out of the news ticker here anymore.

Yeah, you're actually right - you should totally wait until a mass shooting takes place at a comic-con to think about safety at geek community events! *Kappa*

3 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

No, just a couple dozens in shools, public areas, streets, and local community neighborhood events... Over a year? But I can't tell them all, since gun violence in the US doesn't even make it out of the news ticker here anymore.

Yeah, you're actually right - you should totally wait until a mass shooting takes place at a comic-con to think about safety at geek community events! *Kappa*

A - conveniently there are already laws against shooting someone.

B - I'd take the time to educate you about our gun violence rates, but you don't seem very receptive to alternative arguments.

1 hour ago, Vykk Draygo said:

Actually the articles I’m reading state that there were armed police and metal detectors in place. The suspect cut his way through the fence to gain access with his firearm. So I guess all the rules and preparations really helped, or you can continue to try and frame it however you’d like to make your point. My point is if you take all the good guys guns away that only leaves us with a sh** ton of bad dudes with guns.

Cut his way in through the fence. So the security was still lax in an outdoor event venue.

There’s no such thing as a good dude with a gun and a bad dude with a gun. “Good”and “Bad” are subjective opinions and everything except clearly defined. A “good dude with a gun” who conceals carry a firearm through security because he believes it’s his eagle-******* right, is really just a “bad dude with a gun” who thinks he’s good.

4 minutes ago, It’s One Of Ours said:

A “good dude with a gun” who conceals carry a firearm through security because he believes it’s his eagle-******* right, is really just a “bad dude with a gun” who thinks he’s good.

yes. And that would be a reason to revoke the cc. congrats, you've made his point for him.

I'm really trying to understand here, but yet to see why (those who are against this rule) you want to take a weapon to a place where you play a tabletop game!

5 minutes ago, xwingMinty said:

I'm really trying to understand here, but yet to see why (those who are against this rule) you want to take a weapon to a place where you play a tabletop game!

For me, it should be left up to the venue to decide what is allowed/not allowed, and left at that. I just am not a fan of ffg telling stores how to regulate this, and not a fan of the position it might put judges in.

1 minute ago, powersink said:

For me, it should be left up to the venue to decide what is allowed/not allowed, and left at that. I just am not a fan of ffg telling stores how to regulate this, and not a fan of the position it might put judges in.

You'd leave it up to the venue as the venue is the event's organiser, yet this document concerns mostly the events where FFG is technically the event's organiser with the venue's help. You recognise that, do you?

1 minute ago, Ryfterek said:

You'd leave it up to the venue as the venue is the event's organiser, yet this document concerns mostly the events where FFG is technically the event's organiser with the venue's help. You recognise that, do you?

That's just not true. FFG doesn't even organize their own SOS.

1 minute ago, powersink said:

That's just not true. FFG doesn't even organize their own SOS.

They do in Europe, for whatever that's worth.

Just now, __underscore__ said:

They do in Europe, for whatever that's worth.

Point taken, but for the gun discussion I'd guess it doesn't apply.

7 minutes ago, powersink said:

For me, it should be left up to the venue to decide what is allowed/not allowed, and left at that. I just am not a fan of ffg telling stores how to regulate this, and not a fan of the position it might put judges in.

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.

And it's still not answering why people want to take a gun.

3 minutes ago, powersink said:

Point taken, but for the gun discussion I'd guess it doesn't apply.

We have weapons in Europe as well, you'll be shocked to hear.

But if you mean the discussion over gun control in general rather than the FFG rules, then yeah.

.

2 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

They do in Europe, for whatever that's worth.

And more than that, the doc applies so to KeyForge, IA, Armada and any other FFG game with an active tournament scene, about the structure of which we probably don't know all the details of in here.

And if it's not an "FFG event" why should you apply "FFG event ground rules" to it anyways? Go on, do as you please. This doc explain how they please when it's up to them.

Also someone could still complain about a concealed or open carry weapon they have seen, even without this rule. Then the judge has to make the call on whos opinion on safety is more important. With this rule FFG have already made that call.

8 minutes ago, eeen said:

Also someone could still complain about a concealed or open carry weapon they have seen, even without this rule. Then the judge has to make the call on whos opinion on safety is more important. With this rule FFG have already made that call.

Not really, the venue allows it or doesn't.

Why does this decision lay with the land owner rather than the organiser of the event that is using the space?

Surely it's their party and they can decide who is invited.

13 minutes ago, eeen said:

Why does this decision lay with the land owner rather than the organiser of the event that is using the space?

Surely it's their party and they can decide who is invited.

I'd agree, if FFG was renting out the space to run our local wednesday night kit tourney. They aren't.

56 minutes ago, powersink said:

For me, it should be left up to the venue to decide what is allowed/not allowed, and left at that. I just am not a fan of ffg telling stores how to regulate this, and not a fan of the position it might put judges in.

FFG are still a big part of that. Running an offical event is a agreement between the venue and the game maker. If the maker says "I don't want people to carry guns into events with my name on it" then the venue has to agree or back out of the agreement that is running a official event. If the venue wants people to be able to carry their guns, it can always run unofficial events.

FFG has said "We don't want guns at our events." To me this is the most reasonable of requests. Well along the lines of "I don't want you bringing beer to my daughters birthday, even if my daughters birthday is hosted at a venue that allows it."

EDIT: inb4 "guns and beer are two very different things" that's obviously not the point.

1 hour ago, Ryfterek said:

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?

Spot on with all.

This bit I can answer. A gun = easy power over another person. Some people are irresistably attracted to that and/or afraid to live without it.

Power and fear. The Dark Side, basically.