14 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Again, you miss the point I was getting to. And because of your behavior, I have no interest in re-explaining it because it would just be a waste of both of our time.

No. I don't. We are discussing guns, and then you toss in all forms of violence from Biblical times to the present.

The point here is having a gun present, just because. You then conflate that with intent to do harm, which is less preventable.

As @GreenDragoon points out, opportunity is often more of a factor in spontaneous violence than not.

And as @Punning Pundit has pointed out, the presence of a firearm is an immediate escalation.

To wit, if Punning Pundit suddenly suffered Green Dice Psychosis and accidentally, brutally stabbed me with a Large Base Stand (because he didn't have a gun) I can be pretty sure 3 things would not happen:

One: I would not die. I would survive the initial attack to receive medical treatment. Since most guns are of very high calibre (for Stopping Power, a euphamism for "I want the other guy dead"), that does not happen with firearms.

Two: There will be no collateral damage at adjacent tables during our fisticuffs.

Three: There will be no Concealed Carry Large Stand Carriers all chomping at the bit to become Heroes and save the day.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

No. I don't.

The point here is having a gun present, just because. You then conflate that with intent to do harm, which is less preventable.

As @GreenDragoon points out, opportunity is often more of a factor in spontaneous violence than not.

And as @Punning Pundit has pointed out, the presence of a firearm is an immediate escalation.

To wit, if Punning Pundit suddenly suffered Green Dice Psychosis and accidentally, brutally stabbed me with a Large Base Stand (because he didn't have a gun) I can be pretty sure 3 things would not happen:

One: I would not die. I would survive the initial attack to receive medical treatment. Since most guns are of very high calibre (for Stopping Power, a euphamism for "I want the other guy dead"), that does not happen with firearms.

Two: There will be no collateral damage at adjacent tables during our fisticuffs.

Three: There will be no Concealed Carry Large Stand Carriers all chomping at the bit to become Heroes and save the day.

Still missed it. More time wasted.

43 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

Like, in not carrying around a firearm by your side wherever you go just in case a fellow Man turns out to be such a threat to you you'd opt to kill them?

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

?

This is great. I think you guys are getting really, really close to changing each others' minds.

You'd think that after 30 years or so people would realise that there's more reasons to argue on the internet than to try to change someone's mind.

1 minute ago, Maui. said:

This is great. I think you guys are getting really, really close to changing each others' minds.

To quote @SabineKey : "I will take what you said into consideration"

So... yes?

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

To quote @SabineKey : "I will take what you said into consideration"

So... yes?

There is more nuance, but I feel compelled to tell you it hasn’t fully changed my mind.

38 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Still missed it. More time wasted.

Well, it seems the moderators are off til Monday. We could go a few more rounds.

Addendum: it seems that you are trying to say that if something is not preventable, there is no point in having a sanction against it.

If that's the case, only Anarchy or straight jackets for all are useful end points.

Just now, SabineKey said:

There is more nuance, but I feel compelled to tell you it hasn’t fully changed my mind.

And that's perfectly fine. If you will take it into consideration and maybe slightly move your position then that's all one could realistically hope for anyway.

I adjust my view all the time. Getting older and learning more had me appreciate more and more certain traditionally conservative points. Some issues seem to be black and white when they obviously are not. It is to my knowledge not well reported how many situations were resolved, deescalated or forcibly stopped by someone who carried. I still can't believe they justify the risk (especially in the context of game stores), but the cases clearly do exist. View adjustments for me usually start with a "huh..?". If that's what happened here then I'll take it.

Anyway, good moment to abandon thread

I am Australian, I find the need to carry weapons in civvy street preposterous. As I am not American though, it’s not for me to say what should and shouldn’t be done.

but I do want to pose this hypothesis.

I am at a big tournament in the US. I see that a person is concealed carrying, it’s not difficult with the constant movement to see a firearm. I call a TO over as I feel unsafe with a person I don’t know carrying a weapon. It can completely change how I interact with this person. How does a TO respond? Do they look after my opponents right to carry, or my rights as a person to feel safe at a game?

I am an ex Aus Infantry soldier with a bit over 15 years experience. Guns aren’t a thing for me, unhinged people are my issue.

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Wow. And people call concealed carriers paranoid.

Have you ever considered just not living in constant fear toward your fellow Man?

I don't, because I know if someone does attack me out of the blue I have a reasonably large chance of survival. We barely have any pistols in NZ and are currently in the process of destroying all our semiauto rifles.

Oh I'm sorry, you mean "Don't you have faith that your fellow Man won't randomly attack you?". No not really, anger is one **** of a drug and many men aren't very well taught to deal with it safely.

29 minutes ago, CMDR Kastor said:

Oh I'm sorry, you mean "Don't you have faith that your fellow Man won't randomly attack you?". No not really, anger is one **** of a drug and many men aren't very well taught to deal with it safely.

I think “many” is a bit of an understatement. I’d be willing to jump that up to “most.” Few men, if any, could take a punch to the nose from a drunk and not immediately wish to retaliate to equal or greater levels of violence.

Greetings imperial citizens, what is going on in this threa-

By the emperor!

My God, I can't believe I'm posting in this thread now.

Without getting into the argument ongoing, I think this is an awful rule because of how most be enforced. You're putting responsibility for enforcement on random marshals and judges. Say somebody thinks they see the imprint of a handgun under someone's shirt and informs a judge. What does the judge do? "Hey man, could you take some clothes off so I can see if you're packing or not?" If you're banning weapons because you think they pose a threat, you're asking the T.O. to directly confront and remove someone who you've considered a threat. No thanks.

Furthermore, what's the definition of weapons? What if someone has a pocketknife? What if they just came from work and are wearing steel toed shoes? What if they have pepper spray on their keychain?

The only guns that belong at an X-Wing Tournament:

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, it seems the moderators are off til Monday. We could go a few more rounds.

Addendum: it seems that you are trying to say that if something is not preventable, there is no point in having a sanction against it.

If that's the case, only Anarchy or straight jackets for all are useful end points.

You are mistaken.

8 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

You are mistaken.

Ah well.

This little game of "guess what's on SK's mind" is getting boring for me, too.

Have a good night.

I brought my 4-year-old and 7-year-old to X-Wing night last week. If I had seen anyone carrying, I would have left immediately and never returned to that store, ever (if management allowed the person to remain there with a deadly weapon).

Also, there has reportedly been a mass shooting at a food festival in CA, so...yeah.

33 minutes ago, astronautcowboy said:

I brought my 4-year-old and 7-year-old to X-Wing night last week. If I had seen anyone carrying, I would have left immediately and never returned to that store, ever (if management allowed the person to remain there with a deadly weapon).

Also, there has reportedly been a mass shooting at a food festival in CA, so...yeah.

And it took place in a park where weapons are not permitted. So, I’d say that says a lot about the people who perpetuate these things, as has been stated upthread, they don’t follow the law.

This thread has taken a strange turn...

1 hour ago, Iliketiebombers said:

This thread has taken a strange turn...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Like a turn on a trolley track?

Real Talk: Is the Trolley Problem Unnecessary profanity?

And is calling over a judge to prove that the ideal breakfast food is [[redacted]] unnecessary?

2 hours ago, Vykk Draygo said:

And it took place in a park where weapons are not permitted. So, I’d say that says a lot about the people who perpetuate these things, as has been stated upthread, they don’t follow the law.

Per the LA Times, it says more about how lax the security of the event was. A witness reported that her bag was searched upon entry, but her friend’s was not. Searching everyone who enters a venue like that is pretty common practice.

FFG as a private entity is allowed to make the rules for their events. The event venue provides (hires) security for the event. No weapons of any kind are a common rule at gaming events and conventions, and enforceable by whatever security the venue is using. So it’s all moot. Don’t bring a ******* weapon to a game tournament. There is zero logical reasoning behind doing so. And the people who would argue 2A or right to concealed carry nonsense are EXACTLY the kind of effed up individuals that those rules should be targeting and make the event unsafe.

1 hour ago, It’s One Of Ours said:

Per the LA Times, it says more about how lax the security of the event was. A witness reported that her bag was searched upon entry, but her friend’s was not. Searching everyone who enters a venue like that is pretty common practice.

FFG as a private entity is allowed to make the rules for their events. The event venue provides (hires) security for the event. No weapons of any kind are a common rule at gaming events and conventions, and enforceable by whatever security the venue is using. So it’s all moot. Don’t bring a ******* weapon to a game tournament. There is zero logical reasoning behind doing so. And the people who would argue 2A or right to concealed carry nonsense are EXACTLY the kind of effed up individuals that those rules should be targeting and make the event unsafe.

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.

This thread in a nutshell:

8 minutes 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.

Tell me, how does a policeman differentiate between a good person with a gun and a bad person with a gun? I sure as **** wouldn’t go into an active shooter situation and ask if they are the good guy or the bad guy. You have a weapon out, you’re a threat, you have 0 training in these situations, but you gonna take this mo fo down.

But then again I don’t have to, I live in Australia and I can go to the movies, school, work or a club without thinking I have a chance I am going to get shot.