14 minutes ago, CMDR Kastor said:

On August the 27, 2018, Jacksonville, two people were killed and ten injured in a video game tournament shooting by one of the players using a legally owned firearm. He had just lost a game.

A lawsuit was later filed against EA games, who had little or no safety regulations in place, I don't know what the outcome was.

FFG isn't overreaching, they are covering their butts against future mass shootings and following legal proceedings. No one one wants to have their brand on a shooting, let alone one they had no rules in place to dissuade.

If there's a shooting, people will sue, rule or no. And as others have pointed out, unless every venue is equipped with metal detectors or pat-downs, this would do nothing to stop those with malicious intent, anyway.

As for the Jacksonville suit, my guess is that either EA will settle out-of-court to make it go away, or else the case will be thrown out, as I can't imagine on what grounds EA could be said to be responsible.

12 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

If there's a shooting, people will sue, rule or no. And as others have pointed out, unless every venue is equipped with metal detectors or pat-downs, this would do nothing to stop those with malicious intent, anyway.

As for the Jacksonville suit, my guess is that either EA will settle out-of-court to make it go away, or else the case will be thrown out, as I can't imagine on what grounds EA could be said to be responsible.

Under your standard, The only way to tell the difference between those with malicious intent and those without is to wait until the bodies hit the floor. Under the standard FFG has announced, the way to tell the difference is to see who shows up armed in the first place.

Maybe you don realize that if you show up somewhere armed, people think you’re the bad guy. Maybe you do realize this, and it damages your self conception. Either way: the rules of FFG events are clear: leave the gun at home.

As for the EA/Jacksonville thing: ensuring the safety of ones guests is the responsibility of the host. It’s literally a rule older than laws.

15 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

Maybe you don realize that if you show up somewhere armed, people I think you’re the bad guy.

Fixed it for you. Maybe you view everyone with a gun as the bad guy, but in other parts of the country, plenty of people walk around armed all the time and no one thinks anything of it. Personally, I prefer to judge the good guys and bad guys based on their actions and motives rather than on what they're wearing or carrying.

15 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

As for the EA/Jacksonville thing: ensuring the safety of ones guests is the responsibility of the host. It’s literally a rule older than laws.

From what I've read of the incident, the guy left the event after he lost and then returned to actually shoot up the place. Whether or not he actually left the store, it's clear that this was not a moment of uncontrolled temper, but an intentional act. Whether EA had rules against it or not, the guy could have done the exact same thing.

Which raises the question, how does a rule that can't actually stop anyone with malicious intent fulfill the company's obligation to safeguard participants? If it's just as easy for someone to commit a crime with the rule in place as without it, in what sense is the company ensuring their guests' safety?

18 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

Under your standard, The only way to tell the difference between those with malicious intent and those without is to wait until the bodies hit the floor. Under the standard FFG has announced, the way to tell the difference is to see who shows up armed in the first place.

Actually, its the same, because FFG isn't paying for pat-downs and metal detectors at local stores, so with FFG's policy you'll only know when someone pulls their gun, and by then its too **** late; bodies are going to be hitting the ground and now only the malicious guy is armed.

If you play in America, you have most likely been playing in the same room with armed citizens most of your entire time playing with the general public and don't realize it because 999/1,000 times its concealed and unless someone catches a glimpse when someone is leaning over a table, you probably never know. It was never an issue before, stop clutching your pearls.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Second-hand smoke is only harmful if the cigarette is lit. A bullet is only harmful if it leaves the gun.

Oddly, I am legally protected from one, and have no rights against potential exposure to the other.

Quote

Incidentally, if a gun is fired, the law does have quite a bit to say about it.

A lot of good that does me once I'm shot. We have socially normalized guns everywhere, but we have not socialized health care for those affected.

20 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Oddly, I am legally protected from one, and have no rights against potential exposure to the other.

You're legally protected in both cases. O_o What, you think that if someone fires their gun there are no legal consequences for them?

As far as potential exposure, that works in both cases, too. You can't harass someone just carrying around a pack of cigarettes simply because the potential exists that they could light one up.

16 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

You're legally protected in both cases.

A lot of good that does me if I'm dead.

3 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

A lot of good that does me if I'm dead.

Exactly. Which is why it's important to understand risks and take steps to actually be safe rather than ignoring dangers so you can feel safe.

3 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

A lot of good that does me if I'm dead.

You do realize that’s been a problem since WAY before guns were a thing, right? If someone is intent on lethal violence, the lack of a firearm won’t prevent it.

15 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Exactly. Which is why it's important to understand risks and take steps to actually be safe rather than ignoring dangers so you can feel safe.

**Wonders what he thinks everyone is doing when they say "I don't want to play X-Wing with guns in the room."**

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

**Wonders what he thinks everyone is doing when they say "I don't want to play X-Wing with guns in the room."**

What step has been taken to be safe, in that case? Wishing for something--or even making a rule against it--without actually taking steps to prevent it is precisely what I mean by "ignoring dangers so you can feel safe."

If people truly wanted to avoid the potential danger of firearms, they would either ensure that people could not bring a firearm in, or they would avoid events where this was not done.

The fact that some people do neither indicates that either they are ignorant of the risks or else they don't feel the risks outweigh the benefits of going to a tournament.

You guys are going around in circles.

I'm from the UK so think the idea of people 'legally' carrying a firearm is ridiculous so agree with Pundit and Meanie here.

But, you guys aren't gonna change each others minds conversing on a forum about plastic spaceships. At this point you're all pissing in the wind. The whole argument is infinitely bigger than bringing a weapon to your FLGS.

23 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Exactly. Which is why it's important to understand risks and take steps to actually be safe rather than ignoring dangers so you can feel safe.

Hehe. Thread delivers.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

You do realize that’s been a problem since WAY before guns were a thing, right? If someone is intent on lethal violence, the lack of a firearm won’t prevent it.

Sure. But it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. That's why mass stabbings don't have the same body counts as mass shootings.

I second the "please don't lock this"

I want to know what other normally very reasonable person is going to disappoint me that much.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Exactly. Which is why it's important to understand risks and take steps to actually be safe rather than ignoring dangers so you can feel safe.

By keeping you from bringing a gun, and kicking you out if you ignore the rule, we are taking steps to actually be safe.

Introducing a deadly weapon to an environment makes everyone less safe. It's wild that you think deadly weapons make people more safe.

3 hours ago, JJ48 said:

And that's why it's always a good idea to properly secure your weapon and invest in a proper holster.

And people also shouldn't lock their keys in their car and shouldn't use their birthday as their pin number and should make diversified investments and should always take their car into the shop when the check engine light turns on, but people are dumb by nature and don't always do the the things they should do even when they've done it a million times and have been drilled and trained and lectured, they still make mistakes. But none of those other examples involve literally having a primed explosive +shrapnel strapped to your body. You wanna literally play with guns, that might be your God-given right, but it's my right to ask that you not do it around me.

26 States require absolutely zero training for a person to be eligible for a concealed carry license , including the state that I live in, and there are people carrying hidden guns that have no idea what they're doing but probably have a huge chip on their shoulder and are basically ticking idiot time bombs. Guns attract and escalate violence, they don't deter it . Glad to hear that FFG has made the right choice on this one and people like @JJ48 's friends will hopefully be asked to leave their guns outside the store, or they can follow JJ48's example and just play at home with their guns (hopefully in a safe and responsible manner for their own sake). But whether people like it or not, this is the ruling FFG has made.

3 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

By keeping you from bringing a gun, and kicking you out if you ignore the rule, we are taking steps to actually be safe.

So by telling people who follow the rules not to bring guns, and by kicking out people with no intent to harm anyone, you're taking steps to ensure that someone doesn't ignore the rules and intentionally harm someone. Got it.

Just now, JJ48 said:

So by telling people who follow the rules not to bring guns, and by kicking out people with no intent to harm anyone, you're taking steps to ensure that someone doesn't ignore the rules and intentionally harm someone. Got it.

Would it make sense if accidents were more frequent than people going on intentional killing sprees at tournaments?

3 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Glad to hear that FFG has made the right choice on this one

I'd be kinda shocked if they even realised they were making one with that particular rule.

14 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

So by telling people who follow the rules not to bring guns, and by kicking out people with no intent to harm anyone, you're taking steps to ensure that someone doesn't ignore the rules and intentionally harm someone. Got it.

Most laws are not directly enforceable, but rely on people actually observing them and complying without an immediate threat of force. You wouldn't argue that it is pointless to have a speed limits on stretches of road which rarely see any police, or that there's no reason to have laws against domestic violence because the government can't actually observe you abusing your wife in your own home.

Even when I already posted a photo of the aftermath of an accidental discharge and that they do happen and can be devastating to flesh and property, the pro-gun crowd will always frame the argument as being about homegrown heroes thwarting the mass shooter or register robber, even though it's way more often that simple arguments turn into shootouts because someone happened to have a gun on them and didn't have either the training, restraint, or sobriety to keep it in their pants.

In general I find it somewhat interesting that gun nuts will always frame their arguments with cases of extremely rational individuals. I mean I guess that's the burden of any libertarian theory but it's always strange to see it in practice.

33 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Would it make sense if accidents were more frequent than people going on intentional killing sprees at tournaments?

Well, considering there have been several mentions of the Jacksonville incident, and people keep bringing up murderous carriers looking for any excuse to start shooting, you can understand why some might get the impression that the primary fear was of intentional violence.

14 minutes ago, Okapi said:

You wouldn't argue that it is pointless to have a speed limits on stretches of road which rarely see any police, or that there's no reason to have laws against domestic violence because the government can't actually observe you abusing your wife in your own home.

You're talking about different types of laws, though. Laws such as those against domestic violence or theft aren't meant to prevent the crimes; rather they are in place to allow justice to be taken against actions that are inherently undesirable. A law against murder won't prevent the murder, but it means that when a murder takes place, justice can be imposed upon the murderer. Without such a law, what could society do to a murderer?

Other laws are against things that are not undesirable in themselves, but are meant to regulate actions to prevent some other, undesirable potential. For instance, there's nothing undesirable about someone simply having a gun on them; rather, the undesirable bit is it being used when it doesn't need to be. The problem in these cases are that we're no longer punishing people for reasons of justice; but simply because they're not following an arbitrary rule. If the rule ends up preventing the undesirable bit, one may see this as an acceptable trade-off, but if it fails to do so, what are we actually accomplishing?

3 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

In general I find it somewhat interesting that gun nuts will always frame their arguments with cases of extremely rational individuals. I mean I guess that's the burden of any libertarian theory but it's always strange to see it in practice.

...and anti-gunners tend to use cases of extremely irrational individuals. I guess both sides tend to stick with what they know.

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

Well  , considering there have been several mentions of the Jacksonville incident, and people keep bringing up murderous carriers looking for any excuse to s  tart shooting, you can understand why some might get the impression that the primary fear was of intentional violence.

And if it isn't? Does it then make sense to ban weapons from game events?