Are firearms PG13 ?

[femoimal]

Do you think that talking about real firearms and weapons is a PG13 subject ?

Can we talk about real guns and collect them as we would with Bratz dolls ?
Today, any First Person Shooter player knows more about firearms then most armorers did some time ago, but can we forget the prime purpose of those constructs and treat them casually ?

And taking a bit of distance from the purely warboardian point of view, what is your opinion about the perception of such devices in today's occidental society ?

I think its time to have a small living-room chat about Steel, Blood and Violence. Don't you ?


.

[Toucan]

The fact is, some guns are not legal everywhere. For example, in Australia all semi-automatic and automatic weapons are illegal and its my opinion that some thing that is illegal in many countries should not be discussed on a PG-13 site.

In some countries it is perfectly acceptable to buy and view pornographic material from the age of 13. Just because the law of there own land says it's ok doesn't mean its ok to start posting porn on WB's.

This is very much and international arena, the regulations of WB's needs to reflect that.

[Protogod]

The thing of it is; This site also uses English as its primary language, even though English isn't the primary language of all countries. Should this be reflected by allowing threads in all languages? No of course not. That wouldn't make sense.

The fact of the matter is that this is a site hosted, IIRC, by Americans. More important, the very system we are using "PG 13" is a system devised by Americans & was chosen Based around blizzard games so that we can reach the same audiences.

The bottom line is that the real PG 13 designation allows way more than you are it giving credit for. This site is based originally on Blazzard games like starcraft, warcraft, and diablo. To say that we are against that sort of thing is simply unreasonable, given that we would have to remove all talk of weapons from the gaming forums now.

Pardon my French, but this entire discussion is bullshit.

[Tanis]

I agree, Proto.

Firearms are as good a choice for an intellectual discussion as anything else. Intellectual simply means "Of, or pertaining to, or engaging one's intelligence.", and given that firearms are actually quite complicated and their design runs the gamut from pieces of crap to museum pieces worth millions of dollars, it is not unreasonable that an intellectual discussion on them can be held. Yes, they were made to kill, but this does not preclude them from being a subject of a conversation about their various types and designations. What is intellectual about owning a firearm? Not much, really, but the immense variety of them rivals that of a fine wine and can be discussed in as much detail. There's nothing intellectual about owning vehicles, games, or any other piece of property, either.

Now femoimal, I don't know where you come from. Frankly, I really don't give a damn either. If you don't like firearms, that is perfectly fine. You are entitled to an opinion on the matter, but the idea that the discussion of firearms should be 'illegal', as it were, on an internet site where people regularly discuss other things of importance and controversial topics (Like the endless and pointless discussions about the existence, or lack thereof, of God.) is foolish.

Also, I strongly resent the implication that the collection of firearms equates to Bratz dolls, bikes, or any other trivial item. Maybe you don't realize this, but owning firearms is a matter of grave responsibility and a privilege where I live, and not something to be taken lightly. Now, does this stop conversations about them from arising from time to time? Of course not, but the idea that Americans are gun toting jackasses, while true in some cases, is a stereotype that I resent being applied to me. I don't treat guns casually. I also don't treat Nuclear weapons, God, or Presidential Elections casually and there are plenty of discussions on those topics here.

No one has ever complained before you now, femoimal. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is.

[X9]

To be honest, to answer this thread's title, guns are easily "PG-13". There are a whole morass of films that are rated PG-13 that have guns and action violence. While the concept of collecting firearms like Pokemon cards is a bit unfamiliar and yonder from me, I don't see why people can't. I would personally not garner an aggregation of guns, but I don't believe that others shouldn't "collect" guns.

Regards,

X9, StarCraft.Org Fan Fiction Moderator

[Battlecruiser]

I don't see how the rating "PG-13" even applies. It's an arbitrary rating that depends on the viewpoints of the people deciding, and it only really applies to movies. Do you really expect parents to be providing guidance if someone less than 13 comes on these forums and reads about guns?

Since these forums are private, it only matter what the staff thinks about this. If they think it is inappropriate, they have every right to remove it.

As for if we should be even discussing them, apparently the founders of the U.S. thought it was important enough to have an entire amendment devoted to it in the bill of rights. So yeah, it seems like it is pretty important. I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing guns casually or seriously. I wish they were never created, but they inevitably were in the course of human evolution. Now, we can't ignore something just because we don't like it. You only fear what you don't understand.

I probably won't be owning a gun any time in my life (unless circumstances change), but for others such as Tanis, this is as serious a topic as any other. But perhaps discussion about specific guns belongs in the member's lounge, since the Intellectual Roundtable is "For all topics of serious debate, heavily moderated." I don't really think much of a debate would arise from a discussion about specific guns unless you guys start talking about the physics of guns or something. Whatever, I think I'm ranting at this point, so I'm going to stop here.

[Toucan]

We live in a day where kids some times walk into schools and open fire on there schoolmates. How many school kids have been killed in America by classmates with guns?

Your not discussing there use in movies or historical reference. Your not discussing fictional weapons used in games, your discussing real weapons and there practical application. And now even discussing assault rifles in the favorite gun thread.
This is not appropriate "chit chat" for high school students.

In this day and age a site that endorses kids discussing there "favorite guns" may well fall under considerable scrutiny.
This site is PG-13, that means high school students and up. Those threads may have been fine a few years ago, not anymore.

[femoimal]

tanis, alas, you are missing the point entirely.

I do not dislike guns. In fact, i am a fan of panzers, aircraft and fighting ships of all kinds. I have a library full of ww2 stories and huge books, much to the dismay of my woman who tries to compete with art and architecture. She still has a long way :) In fact, half of my books are about war. So no, i am not a pacifist sissy nor do i think it is not an intellectual occupation to read and talk about weapons in general.

There are a few things that put firearms in a totally different category though (this one is for you protogod). You cannot own a tank or an aircraft. Tank and aircraft do not cause death amongst young people in their own country, only between unlucky old bastards that have been sent to the front. And guns kill young people, preferably.

We would not talk about hashish here, although its legal in Holland, used by about 90% of the young and is a very interesting subject. Neither about sodomy, because although its pretty much legal anywhere in the western world, it is not an adequate subject. Nor about mescaline, amphetamines or cocaine. Cocaine is surely treated with respect and caution by many of its users, its a responsability as well as a privilege to use it instead of cheap crack. That still does not make is suitable.

So the issue here is not whether its legal to talk about buying firearms or whether it should be forbidden, it is about it being inappropriate. Because simply put, the prime target of deaths caused by firearms are the very readers of the forum. And treating firearms casually brings it closer to home. Your home.

a small excerpt from a PDF document (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf)

Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence
• In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.
• For every firearm fatality in the United States in 2005, there were estimated to be more than two non-fatal firearm injuries.
• In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden. In comparison, firearms were used tomurder 11,344 people in the United States.
• In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.

Gun Violence - Young Lives Cut Short
• In 2004, nearly 8 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.
• In 2004, firearm homicide was the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age - second only to motor vehicle crashes.
• In 2004, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.
• From 1999 through 2004, an average of 916 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.
• Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.

Guns in the Home - A Greater Risk to Family and Friends
• For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.
• The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.
• The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.


Saying this discussion is bullshit is worrying, at the least. NRA politics and firearms control is high amongst the social issues of today's US. Most intense lobbying and many new legislations are generally not applied to bullshit topics.

Now tanis, i am disappointed in you not caring where i came from, i thought we might go out on a date, you, me and your gun. I myself have no trouble guessing you are in the US. Am i right ? You are saying the word illegal. I never did. I never said you are a maniac bent on murder either. You seem to take great care and possess a great knowledge about guns. Fine, but i think that comparing guns and talking about their performance as a consumer is not appropriate in this very location. Firearms are not and should never be treated as mass consumer goods.
Read more precisely and jump less, tanis: i am no fundamentalist. And if no one raised the issue before, it does not mean that nobody thought about it nor that it's not worth raising.
In fact i have a little thing to confess. I waited for the tanis thread issue to unlock before posting here, because i wanted to know the opinion of the moderators. The fact that those same moderators show extreme jumpiness at the existence of this one thread proves that its worth discussing. All those beautiful "org" logos in a row, writing in unison :D !

About X9, well you have a point. There are guns and violent deaths all over the place in the media. I myself am often found in a minority position of having to defend video-game violence against people that claim it increases aggressiveness in youth. Tough shit, i am sure you have to do it yourselves.
Thing is, is it because there are lots of guns and blood that it makes it necessarily okay ? Would you swap your little brothers' disney DVD with a movie on firearms evolution? No you would not. PG ratings are a matter of intense lobbying as anything else, and the rating policy is changing all the time. I am curious to hear more from parents.

Again, its not about collecting guns or not -in the absolute. Its about the creation of the identity of firearms here, by this action. I even spare you from the cheap scandals of college killing rampages and the issues it raises. Lucky you.

i might be wrong or over-reacting, but this ain't no bullshit. Your jumpiness makes it all the more interesting :smirk:


PS: I remember when i went to the army. Infantry, yes sir! You should have been there to see the funny faces of the lads holding assault rifles. It was as if they held their mother's used panties :D

[X9]

Dear all,

Toucan, I'm not sure if I agree with you. As femoimal's statistics (I couldn't be bothered to read them, personally, I just got the message "guns r bad" :P) demonstrate, guns are responsible for many terrible deaths, especially through infamous events such as gang drivebys or school shootings. However, I don't think that discussion of weapons is inappropriate -- I highly doubt that anyone on this thread is seriously considering going out to get guns to kill people, or if I can only speak for myself -- I assure you all in my life, I will likely never even touch a gun, not even to buy or use one. However, I think it is an appropriate intellectual curiosity to wonder about firearms: I'm a writer, and most of my stories are politicomilitary-related. Thus, I have a natural interest in all aspects of politics and the military, firearms included. I don't necessarily condone gun ownership, and I sure as hell am disgusted by events such as those of Virginia Tech, but yet I don't think it is inappropriate for even young students to think about firearms in a purely intellectual sense.

Sorry if my convoluted tale made no sense. :P

Regards,

X9, StarCraft.Org Fan Fiction Moderator

[GenocideAlive]

I don't know what's more disturbing, that guns can't be discussed without the topic of gun violence, or that those that are opposed to gun control won't hear anything negative about their obsessive behavior. Saying "I don't give a shit what you think, I can't be bothered to consider your opinion" when discussing a topic of firearm violence borders on ludicrous.

It's not uncommon for members of either side of the debate to begin wrapping themselves in the flag, Constitution, etc. to lend them a lofty air of nobility, but I'm really suffocating on the contrast. No matter how out of control gun violence escalates, you will never relent your fantatical stance? How noble of you. I'm sure the Founding Fathers envisioned this world exactly as it is 225 years ago when they formed the Constitution and as a result you should never suffer any changes to the Constitution. In the exception, of course, to when it caters to your opinion.

If femiomal doesn't think the topic is entirely appropriate, I disagree. Americans are militant and imperialistic by culture, they need to educate themselves about the weapons that are so prolific in our country. However, I will certainly hear him out, as is what I'm asking of him each time I post.

[Nuts]

Automobiles account for more than ten times the deaths every year than do firearms. We allow children as young as sixteen years of age to take control of a deadly weapon which is responsible for almost three times the mortality rate when compared to all murders combined in the United States. This is what comes to mind when someone places blame on an inanimate object.

Like firearms, a vehicle can be used for deliberate murder, but more likely and more commonly, it would be a tool used in an accidental death. Yet for all the death, pain and suffering caused by these steel behemoths, we continue to drive them at reckless speeds without regard for the lives of our passengers and our pedestrians. Our government continues to allow relatively untrained citizens to get behind the wheel and cause havoc on the streets.

So why have vehicles not been banned? Why are there not more vehicle laws designed to prevent citizens from owning vehicles? A vehicle is certainly not a necessity when we have perfectly viable public transportation. And even in the case where we do require our own vehicles, should we not mandate speeds that would negate deadly results upon impact? 15 mph limits seem reasonable enough.

This brings me back to the initial topic of this thread and with regard to this, I ask; should we allow our children to discuss automobiles and the deadly consequences that follow when improperly used?

Now surely you fine people can read through the sarcasm contained within my post. And if you picked up on that sarcasm, then I would hazard a guess that you're intelligent enough to ask yourself, what is truly the difference between a firearm, an automobile and a human being? The answer: intent. Yes, intent, which is a characteristic found in sentient beings, not inanimate objects. Guns do not rationalize murder, nor do automobiles. So before we ask ourselves if we should be discussing guns, let's ask ourselves whether or not we should be discussing the the human condition as it relates to violence. Because violence can be carried out in numerous ways, many of which do not require firearms.

[Oblongato]

I think it's clear that the founding fathers also would have wanted the right to keep and bear arms to apply to nuclear weapons. It is the paranoia of the American and other governments that is keeping laws restrictive and prices high. If the absolute right to keep and bear arms were respected as the human right it undoubtedly is, the dream of small tactical nukes could be realized by the average, hard-working American (or what have you).

Sure, there will be those who argue that such weapons are not safe to have around, that some loose cannon could take out entire small cities instead of just half a school. But the safest world is a world based on the concept of mutual assured destruction. Freedom of nukes would usher in an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, racial harmony and cultural respect.

Probably.

[Kingscrab]

So why have vehicles not been banned? Why are there not more vehicle laws designed to prevent citizens from owning vehicles? I think it boils down to the inherent purpose of a thing. What is the inherent purpose of a vehicle? To transport. It is not meant to be malicious. Can that be used as a weapon? Of course. A lot of things can.

What is the purpose of a firearm? The purpose of a firearm is to injure or kill something that is alive. I don't see how you could have a conversation about firearms without discussing casualties inflicted by it. That's why a firearm exists.

EDIT: To answer the thread title question; Yes. PG-13 at the very least.

[Battlecruiser]

It's not uncommon for members of either side of the debate to begin wrapping themselves in the flag, Constitution, etc. to lend them a lofty air of nobility, but I'm really suffocating on the contrast. No matter how out of control gun violence escalates, you will never relent your fantatical stance? How noble of you. I'm sure the Founding Fathers envisioned this world exactly as it is 225 years ago when they formed the Constitution and as a result you should never suffer any changes to the Constitution. In the exception, of course, to when it caters to your opinion.

I'm not sure who you're talking about here, but I think it might be me because I mentioned the constitution. I'm actually neutral on this issue. I think both sides have valid arguments, but both also have their downfalls. The only reason I brought up the second amendment was to point out that guns are something important to discuss, not to justify "gun rights" or "gun control". As far as changes go to the constitution, that's why we have amendments. If something needs to be changed, we can change it.
I think it's clear that the founding fathers also would have wanted the right to keep and bear arms to apply to nuclear weapons. It is the paranoia of the American and other governments that is keeping laws restrictive and prices high. If the absolute right to keep and bear arms were respected as the human right it undoubtedly is, the dream of small tactical nukes could be realized by the average, hard-working American (or what have you).

Sure, there will be those who argue that such weapons are not safe to have around, that some loose cannon could take out entire small cities instead of just half a school. But the safest world is a world based on the concept of mutual assured destruction. Freedom of nukes would usher in an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, racial harmony and cultural respect.

Probably.
That's why our country has eliminated all the nukes it has and is in a moral high ground position to tell Iran and North Korea that they can't have nukes. Even our friends, such as Pakistan and Israel surely don't have nukes because we definitely wouldn't condone it.

No, the only safe world is one where only we have nukes. No one else. Cause we are the most important people.

[GenocideAlive]

Oh, no, no, no. I'm not attacking anyone, and especially not you, BC. You are one of the few adult posters here that actually think before you write something out, a rare commodity that I don't have any intention of rareifying further.

However, I will be forced to agree with both Nuts and Kingscrab (surprise, I have no balls). While Nuts' argument is quite poignant in its delivery, I think it's also compelling to examine its brief glazing of the word "intent".

A gun has one purpose: to murder (30%), to practice murdering (70%).

A car is multipurpose: transportation (90%), property damage (8%), shelter (1.5%), murder (.5%).

When examining these two facts, it shows a rather blatant division of content. There are hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who use automobiles every day. They get to and from their destination with no incident. However, gun use is exclusively used for the ending of a life. Should children take automobile safety as seriously as murder? I think we can see the fallacy of such a claim. Driver's ed would have to be as intensive as a Bachelor's degree.

That said, it probably should. The idiots on the road today never cease to amaze me with their stupidity. I'm probably one of them to other people.

[Nuts]

I think it boils down to the inherent purpose of a thing. What is the inherent purpose of a vehicle? To transport. It is not meant to be malicious. Can that be used as a weapon? Of course. A lot of things can.

What is the purpose of a firearm? The purpose of a firearm is to injure or kill something that is alive. I don't see how you could have a conversation about firearms without discussing casualties inflicted by it. That's why a firearm exists.
I don't think it would be much of a stretch to suggest that firearms were designed with two purposes in mind, offense (war) and defense (self-defense.) Hunters might be scratching their heads, but let's be honest, firearms weren't invented with deer in mind.

Now we don't seem to have much difficulty discussing wars in schools. Hell, I knew about the horrendous events in Auschwitz when I was just a little boy. I knew that millions died during WWII. I knew that the United States vaporized large portions of the Japanese population in an effort to protect and defend the freedoms of free people around the globe. I find these events were and still are more traumatic than any discussion of firearm violence. If we can discuss the mass killings of millions of people, then I dare say a harmless firearm discussion is of little concern. It's all about the context and intent of the discussion. Obviously, discussing ways to pop a convenient store clerk would give me cause for concern.

In every other area of childhood development, we consider education to be an integral part of their rearing. Yet when it comes to firearms, people shy away from education due to the social stigma attached to firearms from the public at large. Firearms are less deadly than automobiles, yet we are afraid to teach children how to respect and care for them in the United States. But look to a country such as Switzerland, where a gun exists in every household and their gun crime rates are some of the lowest in the world. This conundrum should prove, unequivocally, that guns are not directly responsible for violence and the discussion and education regarding guns should be encouraged, not shunned.

[GenocideAlive]

I can most certainly agree that considering what has happened in the past is a compelling reason to prepare for the future. Additionally, the education of children is of utmost importance. However, I'm a little hazy on how you managed to connect the two to teaching guns to children.

It's a rather well-known fact that in the United States, we have a culture that glorifies violence, sex, and aggression without accurately depicting the side-effects. We don't see movies about families that were devastated by the coming of Rambo, we don't see James Bond going to the clinic with Herpes, and we don't see the guy from Prison Break getting caught, beaten by police, then gangraped back in jail. Why?

Because as a society, we somehow have detached these actions from the consequences. Even in the shoot-em-up movies that feature Ahnuld killing 15+ people in a 20 minute sequence, there is rarely any blood that is more than a fancy splash-for-effect. You don't see guys getting maimed horribly and crying for help, not only because it would remove the attention from the protagonist, but it would introduce moral shading. Sure, he's a goon working for a badguy, but should Ahnuld really be stabbing through his lungs just because he tried to detain him? He's crying and scared, he has a family--he needed money to pay for his son's school. FUCK THAT, MORE GUNS, MORE BICEPS, MORE BITCHES, KILL 10 MORE, AHNULD!

In Switzerland, they do not produce movies that reach Blockbuster proportions. They do not feature a hundred movies produced every year featuring tits, gunfire, and a renegade man of the law out for revenge. There is mandatory military service for every male, and they are issued weapons. There is almost no parallel between Switzerland and America, short of the fact that they have comparable gun levels, strictly and tightly regulated by their government. Ammo stocks are checked, as are weapons, I believe on a monthly basis. I seriously doubt American gun owners would agree to anything like Switzerland's gun control laws.

The problem is not in America's education system, because after all not everyone wants their son or daughter to grow up packing heat. The government has no responsibility to teach every child verse and wrote about guns that they may or may not want. What they need, which no American gun owner wants to hear, is more strict gun control laws. We need to start tracking the yahoos with guns, and providing our citizens with some reasonable assurance that those in possession of firearms aren't just a couple of dickbreath morons with $500 to spend.

There needs to be training courses prior to gun ownership, there needs to be proof of an ability to store the gun properly, and there needs to be strict consequences for failure to comply. There needs to be a limit on the number of a guns a household can maintain without specific requirements being met (safe, etc.).

As for the PG-13 rating, parents who don't want their kids discussing guns with yahoos on the Internet should be considered. I realize you, someone else, or another person may not plan on going on a shooting spree, but guns are no simple inanimate object. They are made to kill, which is psychologically and emotionally more demanding than operating simple transit vehicles.

[Protogod]

We are losing sight of the topic, and regardless of whether "guns b big n scarry" or not, the topic is are they PG-13. Yes, they are, simply.

The intent was to ask whether they are appropriate for discussion, which they also are. We are not talking about how we are gonna kill people at school, nor anything graphic or crude. The discussions were of relative performances, quality, and generally the appeal of different guns. I fail to see how discussing that is offensive in any way. You can go see a move showing how to kill 20 people in a room with one clip, or you can sit on a forum and talk about the esoteric appeal of different weapons. Which is more offensive?

[femoimal]

protogod, we are not loosing sight of the topic at all. AG is just reaching it via a slightly wider arc than you would reckon, that's all. The skill with which he reaches for a detached middle ground is something to behold, especially since i think he likes guns too.

- Nuts, if you want a defensive weapon, get a taser. Or a giant armored door for your place. Or barbwire around your home. Barbwire is cheaper than a weapon and there is not much chance your child will play with it or someone get shot with it.
About the US vaporizing people through history, well, the brits did it too. They do not have the firerarm death statistics the US has. And the bomb was to scare the russians. Do not mingle geopolitics and the fact that a 14 year old can get hold of an assault rifle. It has nothing to do with it. WW2 is totally remote.

... When you hear a gunshot, do you think of the werhmacht invading poland ?

-Errr battlecruiser, the US are selling nuke technology to india, with no strings attached :confused: Non Proliferation treaty my arse. No control here either. More interested in sales yet again.

- if X9 had read the statistics i posted (yes they are important, not just ballast), you would read that the firearms primarily kill young people. Those very same young people (you) are force-fed with pictures glorifying the possession of guns. Makes you more macho here, more dominant there, more free, more powerful, more scary etc... It is a sad turn of way-of-life marketing to indentify masculinity with a weapon. But well, some zulu tribes do it and make young males carry special knifes ever after their manhood rituals. It is that sophisticated, sometimes.


I might be wrong but i believe that talking about guns in a gaming forum will somehow make it a bit more attractive to own one (or less scary to get one). And that's not something i deem reasonable. Your parents could even ask of you to kindly keep clear of the forum if they knew. One thing is to talk about counter-strike and how to get a good headshot with a HK or a AK-74 in the game. It is another thing to talk about characteristics of real fire-arms.

For we cannot, as some said earlier, detach guns from their prime purpose. Killing. Such hypocritical logic tells badly of your mental state. And you bring those babies home.

How would the mods react if we talked about making our own explosives in this thread ? hummm ? Yeah, its just chemistry, why not. Well the thread would be closed at once.

Oh sure we can talk about guns, we are free to do anything. But there is a time and place for each thing. I would not discuss sado-masochism in front of your 9 years old little sister or child. It's too early and she will have all the time in the world to discover it later if she wishes (especially with Bratz SM series, ages 2 up). I would say PG16. I mean in some countries people vote at 16 (hint, not in all, and tell me why), why should they not be able to paint the roof with their brains if they want to?

Or we could just move the loved guns thread out if the IR and into a hobby area. At the very least.

There are 2 major ways of talking about guns: the first is about exchanging ideas and discussing principles, legislation and social perceptions of guns. The other one does just makes guns look like a wall-mart commodity. What way belongs to the IR?
But then again, tanis knew about it perfectly, since he made a suspiciously comprehensive opening post.

PS: tanis i hold no personal grudge against you. I hope you believe me.

[X9]

Dear femoimal,

I wouldn't have a problem if a discussion about guns as a "hobby" was moved from the intellectual discussion to another section of the thread. However, this thread was to discuss whether are not firearms are PG-13, which IMHO is an intellectual and opinionated discourse, thus I think it's appropriate in this forum. But enough of that.

Quite honestly, I think it's possible to discuss weapons intellectually -- while it seems absurd, my interest in them solely isn't to kill people (I've never handled a gun in my life and don't intend to ever purchase or possess one) but rather to learn of their characteristics in a detached manner for my writing. However, talking about making one's own explosives however I think is unacceptable because there is criminal intent attached with asking how to make an explosive. I would agree if a thread sprung up on how to kill people with guns. However, I don't think any of us are suggesting to make a thread on how to kill people with guns but rather to discuss them purely from a dispassionate standpoint.

However, you have a very valid point -- of course society today is depicting gun ownership as macho. IMHO, it's one of the ways that society is denigrating itself. And I don't support gun ownership, BTW. However, I think it's interesting to talk about them. Hope I've not generated any hard feelings with my not thought-out post. :P

Regards,

X9, StarCraft.Org Fan Fiction Moderator

[femoimal]

i do agree with what you say x9, entirely.

of course, nobody said anything about going out and shooting down people, and i sure do not believe we have maniacs in here. All the contrary. I was even never interested in the gun, really. I sort of was intrigued with how youngsters could get hold of assault rifles and "frag" classmates, but that was that. Ah, and i also saw "elephant" by Gus Van Sant (sorry for the spelling).

I just take your thinking one point further, saying its a bit difficult to dichotomize the object from its design purpose. And that the purpose (killing) is inadequate for this location. That's all.

Just an anecdote. I am a great fan of the "panzer general" series. Its about tanks and ww2. Once i fetched the manual to a (good looking!) girl that wanted to know about the game. It happened that she had 2 german friends with her, that totally looked horrified at how german generals and the german machine of war was glorified in the manual. It made me think a bit. We should not really dissociate totally the whermacht from its egotistic and cruel generals, and from the barbarism some SS and landwher troops manifested. I always keep it somewhere in my head when i invade Russia.

Objects are not like people, they are designed for a purpose. Let's not loose track of that.

[Toucan]

However, I don't think any of us are suggesting to make a thread on how to kill people with guns but rather to discuss them purely from a dispassionate standpoint.

Now it's got a couple advantages in close-in fights because (My soldier cousins tell me) the automatic is helpful. A lot of times you just don't have time to aim right when you're kicking in a door or something. Plus, it's shorter, so it is easier to manuver around inside a room.
That's starting to sound a lot like instructions on how to kill with the damn thing to me. Thats not a game of counterstrike he is describing.
The only concern here is it suitible conversation for 13 year old high school students. Not if it is sutible for those any older than that.
Wether or not guns are legal in the US is not the issue. How many of you would allow a 13 year old child to use a gun with out adult supervision?
I believe that some parents may take offence to this as well. Speaking for myself I would not allow my children to participate in a conversation about guns at the age of 13 without my participation.

13 year old children should be taught about guns by there parents and under there parents supervision. Not by some one on the internet.

Tanis always mentions his Dad, his father taught him about guns, not a stranger on the internet. Why are the parents of WB's youngest members not entitled to the same privledge?

[X9]

That's starting to sound a lot like instructions on how to kill with the damn thing to me. Thats not a game of counterstrike he is describing.

Dear Toucan,

Perhaps in that respect you are correct. I think I'm more realizing femoimal's point that you can't bifurcate guns into something coldly intellectual and also a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill or maim.

More importantly, though I think is the intent behind these discourses. My point in participating in any military discussions on Warboards isn't to learn how to kill people but rather how to realistically depict the military in my fictions or roleplays. Quite honestly, I think it's important for us to consider the thought of someone writing about warfare. Any writer about the military will inevitably come across the unsavory point of killing. However, does that make the writer as denigrated as someone who solely exists to uncivilly kill? When you're describing clearing a room like Tanis, are you going through the same motions on realistic CQC combat and how to eliminate hostiles in the room? What seperates someone actually spraying a room with automatic fire and someone describing a fictional character doing the same? What's the difference? Does it make the writer as "bad" as a room-clearer in real life?

However, you all raise valid and realistic points, and again, I hope my retorts aren't antagonistic. :P

Regards,

X9, StarCraft.Org Fan Fiction Moderator

[Nuts]

We understand that children have access to guns in many homes. It's a sad fact, but it's true. My point here is that an educated child will know how to handle that weapon should he or she find themselves in a position where they are in contact with a firearm. A proper firearm education instructs people to use a gun only in cases where they intend on killing. You do not point guns at anything that is not a target, period. Weapons are never empty, period. These are basics for anyone dealing with powder weapons of any sort. Discussing firearms on an internet forum is going to aid them in their understanding of said weapons. Understanding firearms is the first step in education. I'm not encouraging this discussion, but I can't see the harm either. Discussion and action need not follow one another.

Now ask yourself, would you prefer your child be educated on the damage that is possible from a weapon, or would you prefer them to be ignorant. Ignorance is what causes children to shoot their friends. Ignorance is what causes people to clean guns with one round in the chamber, all the while proclaiming "it's empty."

So when we say that discussing firearms is a PG-13 topic, I have to wonder why? If a child has access to a weapon, they have already seen daddy play with it, they have already seen numerous TV show deaths from firearms, and they have likely even touched one before. If the OP is trying to imply that the mere discussion of various firearms is somehow destructive, in and of itself, I find that to be completely absurd.

To answer the analogy posed earlier, explosives are not used for self-defense. People do not store explosive in their houses. Explosives cannot be legally discharged for practice. To compare the art of explosive design to discussing various models of weaponry is like comparing a Ford Explorer to an Abrams tank.

- Nuts, if you want a defensive weapon, get a taser. Or a giant armored door for your place. Or barbwire around your home. Barbwire is cheaper than a weapon and there is not much chance your child will play with it or someone get shot with it.
I thought you said you weren't anti-gun? I own about 5 guns, and I keep them well maintained and out of harms way. I don't have children by choice, so that argument is invalid. And you obviously have no experience in self-defense if you feel that a taser is a viable self-defense weapon. Few people realize that firing a taser requires a highly skilled marksman And to discharge an appropriate and disabling force, one must fire from a range sufficient to allow for ample distance between the probes. A taser is not a viable weapon unless you are using it as a precursor to pulling a gun (i.e. law enforcement.)

Secondly, your implication that barbed wire or reinforced doors are somehow a replacement for a firearm is somewhat short sided. There are few deterrents that will discourage a home invader. Short of roll down steel shutters, there is a very good likelihood that at some point during your life, you will see or know someone whom has had their home invaded. Barbed wire can be snipped and glass windows are a marvelous alternative to a reinforced door. A 12 gauge pump action shotgun is perhaps the greatest deterrent that I can imagine, not to mention that it gives me warm fuzzies sitting next to my bed.

You have a different mindset and I appreciate that. Sadly, your optimistic views will end up getting you in trouble and perhaps killed should you end up in the wrong situation. Not all people are inherently good. There are people out there that would stop at nothing and kill you in a second just to take your last $20 so they can afford their drug habits. Yes, America breeds this type of mentality and perhaps we are to blame for this predicament. Blame a lack of racial homogeny, blame our drug laws, blame our social system which manages to keep our poor from taking a stand and helping themselves out of poverty. Whatever you choose to blame, remember that there are law abiding citizens whom gave their lives to make certain that we could defend ourselves and our families in times of crisis. The 2nd amendment was designed for law abiding citizens, and I am one, and I intend on taking full advantage.

About the US vaporizing people through history, well, the brits did it too. They do not have the firerarm death statistics the US has.
I think you missed my point. I was using those instances as cases where we seem to have little to no reservation when discussing death with a child, yet for some odd reason, the fact that a gun "can" cause death has everyone scared to mention them, including some in this very thread.

Regarding firearm rates in the U.S. -vs- the U.K., you are comparing apples to oranges. The U.K. has a closed border with very little coast and border line to control. The U.K. also has less freedoms, which is not a trade off that I am willing to make. To enjoy freedom, one must assume certain liabilities from those that would misuse that freedom. It's simple case of yin and yang.

And the bomb was to scare the russians. Do not mingle geopolitics and the fact that a 14 year old can get hold of an assault rifle. It has nothing to do with it. WW2 is totally remote.
So what exactly are you concerned about? If it's not the the topic, then I guess you're worried that a child is going to grab their father's Glock and start emptying magazines into the neighbors? Would you prefer to have an educated child or an uneducated one handling a gun?
"Hey daddy, look what i can do! Blammo!"

[GenocideAlive]

We are losing sight of the topic, and regardless of whether "guns b big n scarry" or not, the topic is are they PG-13. Yes, they are, simply.
Wow, that was a compelling case, protogod. Thanks for that.

As for the reply that "education prevents childhood accidents", I'm a little hazy on the basis for this data. What exactly are you proposing as education? Who are you referring to as "children"? You claim that whatever "education" you're referring to will prevent childhood accidents, but then go on to note that guncleaning accidents are perpetuated by adults. Clearly, there is a problem beyond a simple cry of education if adults that are knowledgeable enough to clean their own guns are still shooting themselves. Children, notorious for illogical thinking and testing of boundaries, don't seem like they'd be good candidates for guns regardless of what you lecture them about.

I also question your use of the word "deterrent". A 12 gauge pump shotgun is no deterrent at all, unless you have a sign outside your house that plays video of you shooting it. No burglar breaking into your house will know that the house is containing a shotgun.

OFC, I'm pro-guns, etc. but I'm also pro-tighter gun control laws. I think we could cut down on a lot of stupid deaths but taking guns from the stupid.

[Nuts]

As for the reply that "education prevents childhood accidents", I'm a little hazy on the basis for this data. What exactly are you proposing as education? Who are you referring to as "children"? You claim that whatever "education" you're referring to will prevent childhood accidents, but then go on to note that guncleaning accidents are perpetuated by adults. Clearly, there is a problem beyond a simple cry of education if adults that are knowledgeable enough to clean their own guns are still shooting themselves. Children, notorious for illogical thinking and testing of boundaries, don't seem like they'd be good candidates for guns regardless of what you lecture them about.
I think that the alternative is far worse. When you consider the status quo, guns are readily available to most anyone that cares to look. With this availability we have two options, either "don't touch" or "touch, but under supervision with proper training." I personally grew up around guns and I am perhaps one of the most anal when it pertains to gun safety, save perhaps my father. As ridiculous as it may sounds, I get furious when someone points any type of gun in my direction, fake, toy or otherwise. My thinking is that if you never point a gun at someone, there's never a risk of being shot.

As for adults, yes they can be dumb. I was using cleaning as an example of ignorance as it pertains to guns in general. But most of these ignorant adults were likely not properly trained as children, which seems to be the case in my experience. Respect for firearms and other deadly equipment such as vehicles should be taught from a young age. I'm not saying that we need little children running around well armed, but they should at the very least be taught the basics of gun safety and the potential harm and damage that can be inflicted with these devices.

I also question your use of the word "deterrent". A 12 gauge pump shotgun is no deterrent at all, unless you have a sign outside your house that plays video of you shooting it. No burglar breaking into your house will know that the house is containing a shotgun.
Poor choice of words on my part. More correctly, it prevents further escalation. In times where I suspect someone is up to no good, I have been known to rack my Mossberg outside my house on a few occasions. It makes a really nice sound that is unmistakable and tends to make people want to walk (or run) the opposite direction. Any intelligent aggressor is going to seriously think twice about going up against a shotgun. A few shells of 00 buck shot trumps any hand gun.

OFC, I'm pro-guns, etc. but I'm also pro-tighter gun control laws. I think we could cut down on a lot of stupid deaths but taking guns from the stupid.
I would appreciate it if we could simply enforce the laws on the books. I think a simplification and revalutaion of the laws are in order. As for taking them away from the stupid, I agree with your sentiment without a doubt, but the slippery slope consideration has me weary of any new gun laws that would single out people based on an arbitrary measure of idicoy.

[singo]

Okay. Firstly, answering the actual question.

No, guns are not "PG-13", although I dislike that term, "12A" will do fine (Brit alert!). I learned about guns at about that age, I fired guns at that age, under adult supervision (boy scouts, although no doubt the scouts are not allowed to go shooting anymore due to some sort of health and safety bol**cks) and on a rifle range. I have never treated a firearm with disrespect and I have never shot anyone with one. From the way some people talk that is a borderline miracle.

Gun control laws are a slightly different subject, and it appears the question is America's ones, or lack thereof. America does need slightly stiffer laws when it comes to the ownership of guns. For a start people should not be allowed them unless they have a SECURE place too keep them, this prevents people breaking in a nicking the guns (which is apparently a major source of black market firearms in the US).

And as for "needing them for protection" Neither I nor anyone else I know has ever been in a situation where a firearm would be of any use (with the possible exception of my father, who is a copper). Just though I would point that out, along with the statistic that there is a one in a million chance that a gun will be used to defend a home against an intruder, the chance of it being used on a member of the household is something like five times greater.

Own a gun because you want to or because you can, not because you "need" it, you dont.

[Hydralisk1337]

Every age has a right to talk about firearms, I mean, think of it. Two 5 year olds will go outside and shoot each other with fake firearms and eventually will get out of it and enter the real firearm industry. To the first post of this topic, the whole PG-13 thing is pointless. Everyone of all ages (with the exception of infants) will talk about firearms eventually. Also, collecting guns can be a hobby...for 18 year olds or the required age to collect them. As long as they don't go, starting up a killing spree or school shooting, or they'll be too immature to handle them. In other words: PG-13? What would the goverment do? Lock people up for saying "FIREARM," even if whispering it?

[GenocideAlive]

Every age has a right to talk about firearms, I mean, think of it. Two 5 year olds will go outside and shoot each other with fake firearms and eventually will get out of it and enter the real firearm industry. To the first post of this topic, the whole PG-13 thing is pointless. Everyone of all ages (with the exception of infants) will talk about firearms eventually. Also, collecting guns can be a hobby...for 18 year olds or the required age to collect them. As long as they don't go, starting up a killing spree or school shooting, or they'll be too immature to handle them. In other words: PG-13? What would the goverment do? Lock people up for saying "FIREARM," even if whispering it?
What the hell are you talking about? 5 year olds using pretend guns will become gun users when they get older? What statistics are you quoting, there? The government is going to lock up people saying "firearm"? Is this some kind of Slippery Slope remark? Honestly, people. It's the IR, and that doesn't stand for the Indignant Ramble.

[Hydralisk1337]

Just placing a statement to what I think of this PG-13 thing. Nothing special or anything to get all insane about.

[femoimal]

We understand that children have access to guns in many homes. It's a sad fact, but it's true. My point here is that an educated child will know how to handle that weapon should he or she find themselves in a position where they are in contact with a firearm. A proper firearm education instructs people to use a gun only in cases where they intend on killing. You do not point guns at anything that is not a target, period. Weapons are never empty, period. These are basics for anyone dealing with powder weapons of any sort. Discussing firearms on an internet forum is going to aid them in their understanding of said weapons. Understanding firearms is the first step in education. I'm not encouraging this discussion, but I can't see the harm either. Discussion and action need not follow one another.

Now ask yourself, would you prefer your child be educated on the damage that is possible from a weapon, or would you prefer them to be ignorant. Ignorance is what causes children to shoot their friends. Ignorance is what causes people to clean guns with one round in the chamber, all the while proclaiming "it's empty."


[i myself put in bold the more savory pieces of the post]

Are you nuts, nuts ? :rolleyes: The Edit button may be our best friend, but the "re-read what you have just written" is just about as handy.

No wait, i will try and follow your line of logic here, for a while (and hope i am not scarred for life). Well, we should train our kids to shoot to kill, because Kalashnikovs are the common decorative item above the fireplace. Talking about shooting to kill on a forum will help them not kill their friends, instead of the dark skinned burglar or rapist who wants to insert evil bodily fluids into our wife's body. Knowledge is to know whether the 7,62mm or 5,556mm caliber is best for 1000 yards shooting (of the same burglar, in the living room). And wisdom is definitely to teach your 9 year-old about handling an assault riffle because indians might be pissed off of the decreasing profits of their casinos and declare a jihad on poor white honest people.

I could not agree more. I'd go even further.

"We understand that children have access to drugs in many homes. It's sad but it is true. My point here is that an educated child will know how to handle the syringe or not overdose where he is in contact with heroin, crack or else. A proper drugs education instructs people to use a drug only when they intend to get high. You do not inject yourself or sniff when you are depressed or drunk or under anxiolytics, period. You do not mix amphets with poppers and viagra, period.
Discussing administration and use of drugs in an internet thread is going to aid the children in understanding the drugs. Its their first step in education. I'm not encouraging this discussion, but I can't see the harm either. Discussion and action need not follow one another."

end of misquote :D

thing is, i do not think a syringe handling thread would go far. On the other hand, a thread talking about the effects of drugs on people and the society would be great.
Well, no, its perhaps a bad exemple. I would like very much people to talk about drugs in here, because people take drugs everywhere and the drugs need to be de-mystified.[actually in london there are free leaflets describing all the drugs, their effects, and their consequences of use]. Only in Afghanistan, Sicily, Myanmar, the US and Soudan is every nutcase freely armed and proud of it. What a nice collection of countries, eh ?
http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=TX
Its so easy to get guns ! i cannot believe it.

The thing is no one needs to be armed. You might disagree, for a personal reason there. Its okay, its your right. But do you think the kids need to be armed ? Do they need to come into contact with rifles and automatic weapons ? Do they need to get informed about them ? What, you want to send them to the front like they do in Burundi, Congo or Angola ? Children soldiers ? I do not believe so. Sorry if i sound hectic, but my hair just rose up when i read that post.

Let the Elders think if they need to be armed to be free (sic). Let the children enjoy play or other kinds of knowledge. Carpentry, electronics, cybernetics, painting, moral philosophy (just joking). Assembling an AK-74 blindfolded is not really a feat i would admire in a 13 years old.

Except of course if he is tracked by a human-skin-covered killing machine from the future, in which case i guess he's left with no choice. The fate of humanity is in his hands, after all.

"-...may i help you ?
- Sarah Connor?"

[Nuts]

Education need not condone use. Teaching someone about the consequences of a particular action does not increase their likelihood of performing said action. In fact, in cases where the action may have serious repercussions, I dare say education may convince children and adults alike to avoid making mistakes that they may have made otherwise without proper education.

Your misrepresentation of my statements are not surprising. Most gun control advocates assume that guns are evil in and of themselves and apply no responsibility to the human being operating said weapon. The Columbine uproar wasn't so much about the shooters as it was about gun control. Thanks Michael Moore!

You may misquote me until the cows come home if you feel that helps your argument. But if you want to explain how discussion directly correlates with action, my ears (eyes) are wide open. And if that's the case, then perhaps we should refrain from sex education, drivers education and martial arts for children. After all, if we teach children how to drive, they may kills someone. If we teach children how to have sex, they may become pregnant. If we teach children how to perform a crane kick, they might kill someone.

The thing is no one needs to be armed. You might disagree, for a personal reason there. Its okay, its your right. But do you think the kids need to be armed ? Do they need to come into contact with rifles and automatic weapons ? Do they need to get informed about them ?
Children don't need to drive.
Children don't need to have sex.
Children don't need to learn martial arts.

No?

[femoimal]

education is fine, i am a firme believer in educating children for things they might, or should deal with.

If you feel firearms are a necessity in our daily lives, then its where our opinions disgress, but do not try to put any universal virtue on firearms.

Real weapons are not evil, they are objects. They are just used for killing, and that is what i want away from children. Of course, morally you could condemn ownership of weapons because they are designed to perform an evil deed, but i do not care about it if gun owners blow their kids to pieces, its manhood for you.

what sort of bloody education are you talking about ? A sentence is enough. Firearms are dangerous, handle with care especially if it is loaded. Who in his right mind would develop a 500-pages essay about those items to a 13-year old ? That does not qualify as education, what you talk about is training and drilling. Spot the difference ?

Proper education will not make a child want a weapon, except perhaps if you are a jew in the occupied territories. Do you feel like that ? Education will make you keep clear of weapons. Why do you need five weapons anyway ? You do understand that the very possession of those many firearms does not bode well for your objectivity, don't you ?

What does a child gain from discussing assault gun technicalities ? Either he will be equipped to deal with Arnold and his dreadful austrian accent, either he will become an armourer ?

How does discussion correlate with action ? If you are a 12 years old and all your friends talk its cool to sniff glue its okay. If you discuss it with 30 year-old lads who compare glues, don't you think its becoming a bit odd ? Won't it make it more likely you'll try ? Is it legal for all minors in the all the US states to own weapons ? If not, why should we speak about an illegal deed here ?

But let's leave legality to the lawmakers, they follow, they never lead. Its about commonsense. You compare sex education and gun education. Right. (i'll leave the karate bit aside because it made me smile. It reminded me of an old Indiana Jones shot). Errr you cannot compare both ? Because we all have sex one day, and we for the crushing majority never fire a gun? And sex is about pleasure, and guns is about some paranoid dementia? Here again you see yourself in another world, another time. The far-west perhaps ?

All in all, I acknowledge your choice to be armed as a common (some say light and others don't) pathology. Whatever insecurities you have, it makes sense for you to deal with it that way. No problem here, i myself eat a lot of chocolate. But there is quite a large logical gap between that kind of therapy and talking about universal gun training and drilling for kids.


PS: talking about sex with children will help them NOT get pregnant, by the way, heellllloooOOoo ? Again you do not want to see the difference between discussing social impact of firearms and technical features about them.


I'll meet you in the central street, at noon, tomorrow. You with your gun, me with my chocolate bar. Okay ? ;)

[femoimal]

i cannot resist those. Can you ?

[singo]

They are just used for killing, and that is what i want away from children.

No they are NOT just used for killing. There is a rather nifty invention called targets which can be used to point firearms at, and enjoy the use of said weapons, in a controlled manner and an enjoyable way without making a red mess and lots of paperwork.

[Blackwater]

Talking about firearms and going to buy one are for two different age groups altogether. And they are two different things. Talking about firearms is most certainly are PG-13. If the movie I Am Legend is PG-13, then firearms, zombies, and graphic content is all PG-13. Comparing talking about firearms and going buying, and shooting firearms is like saying that if you watch PG-13 movies with guns means you want to kill people. Have more trust in kids, not all of them are stupid.



-lol, It doesn't allow me to put WarBoards in my 'Custom User Title'

[Blackwater]

Did the staff ever come to a conclusion about this?

The Gun thread is still closed.... :mad:

(This isn't supposed to be a double post. The other one is from a week or so ago...)

[femoimal]

don't really know. I suppose they apply the principle of precaution. That is, if they are not sure about something, they still go for the protective and potentially less harmful decision.

Anyway, you are right about kids, they are not dumb, they can make a difference between reality and drama. Still, you got statistics on your hands. Why so many deaths with firearms ? Who needs a weapon on his premises ? Why drill young ones ?

[Blackwater]

Why so many deaths with firearms?

I believe it is mostly the troubled or upset people that do the irrational thing. Not the people that say "Hm, the guns not loaded, lets clean it." or a kid saying "Woah?! Whats this?" Or mostly gang shootings, and people that don't legally own the gun in the first place. Who needs a weapon on his premises?

Police, Professional Hunters, People that make a living with weapons such as registered bodyguards. (Yes there is a such thing as a registered bodyguard.)

Other than that no one. Unless their house has been robbed repeatedly and the police take 5 minutes to respond. (Like I was in California)

Why drill young ones?

Not sure what you mean here, but if it means why show them about it etc. Then I think they should be told what happens if you make a simple mistake with a loaded weapon. And then they should steer clear. Adults with a weapon should also emphasize on the difference between the real world and tv/movies.

(Back on topic.)

Yeah, its PG-13 lol. :D

[Tanis]

I am mildly amused that this thread has remained active for weeks and weeks after the initial thread which sparked it. I have watched it with a passing interest for the past couple of days and now that it is four o'clock in the morning and I have no pants and no shirt on, I feel compelled to leave a short message here.

Am I biased? Damn right I am biased. Everyone is biased. No one is completely objective, it's an impossibility with the Human mind.

Why do I own firearms? Well let's start with the most obvious thing. I didn't buy any of them, they were gifts to me from my uncles and my dad. Secondly, target shooting is the only activity I can do with my dad and not yell at him. I hate my father, and the only time we ever laugh at each other, smile at each other, or otherwise have a good time is when we loose 40 dollars to each other over six rounds at twenty one feet. Firearms were made to kill, this is true, but that isn't to say that their use is solely restricted to the purpose for which is was designed.

And the Arnold references along with the allusions to African child soldiers are starting to get on my nerves. I'm not a damn militant, and I doubt (strongly) any here are.

Maybe some people don't like guns. I can see that point of view and sympathize with it. Am I going to let that stop me from target shooting with my guns or owning them? No, I am not, but let's look at the textbook definition of 'PG-13'.

'PG-13 - Parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.'

Do I think children under the age of 12 or 13 should be permitted the use or own firearms? Are you fucking nuts? Course I don't. In no way do I condone that sort of behavior. However I do think that people age 14, 15, 16+ have the right and option to be educated about them and have them, albeit with parental supervision till they are 18 or 21 for rifles/shotguns/primitive and pistols respectively.

I live in America. Most of the people here live in America, and in America, people can own firearms at age 18. If people want to learn about them, they sure as shit can do it someway and somewhere.

[Toucan]

I live in America. Most of the people here live in America, and in America, people can own firearms at age 18. If people want to learn about them, they sure as shit can do it someway and somewhere.
I agree 100%, if you are over 18 you do not need your parents/guardians/teacher's supervision and have the right to choose your own path with out parents/guardians/teachers enforcing their own moral code on you. However if you are not 18 then you do not have that right.

And if you are 13 you certainly do not have the rights of 18 year old. And a 13 year old child's parents have the right to teach them their own moral code in regard to guns.

Just as your parents had that right to teach you their moral code Tanis. Other people have the right to teach their children what hey believe is right and wrong as well.

[Tanis]

I don't give a damn what you teach your kids. I really don't. Teach them to be Nazis, Knights of the KKK, teach them to be in the god damn Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade for all I care. If I want to talk about firearms here, it is my right. You don't have to like it. No one has to like it. But it is my right and I will exercise it.

And as far as I am concerned, you can decide your own moral path regardless of your age. It is your choice and your life, you make your own decisions. My morals have been different from my parents since I was nine. Not overtly, not directly in opposition to, but they are different that that is MY choice and everyone's.

Because parents can be wrong, and I'm not saying that because I am eighteen years old and going to college in the fall, it is the truth.

[Toucan]

If I want to talk about firearms here, it is my right.
No it is not!
And I thought your father supported gun ownership, how is your idea of right and wrong in regard to guns different from your fathers?

Parents may sometimes make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we leave 13 year old children with out parental supervision.

Guns is a subject that must be taught hands on, children need to be shown how to use them safely, not just read about it on a gamers forum.

By your own admission, you don't care about anyones opinion other than your own. How does that qualify you to decide communal rules?

But either way, the decision was made. Once the conversation lead to assault rifles, kicking in doors and pointing guns at people (not targets) it was time for the conversation to end. And I agree with that decision wholeheartedly.

[Blackwater]

Just a random question im throwing in here- Does this mean we are no longer allowed to have/shoot/own guns in the Online Role Playing section? As around 90% of the threads have guns. Just a random question.....

[femoimal]

blackwater, you are not very good at playing stupid ;) You would not qualify to be a candide anywhere. You very well know that it is the real firearm that's the problem. Not the virtual/game ones.

I certainly would not like to face an hydralisk just armed with harsh language or try and get a headshot throwing a mash mallow.

Tanis, you're again missing the issue. You should care about the others. Even more so about young citizens. Man, you are seventeen ??!? Freedom is a human's being right, sure. But not all freedoms are. I get surprised when people just quote their rights and forget their duties. Even fish protect the young. We can better a fish in more than one way.

[Tanis]

Now, femoimal, you are missing MY point. It's not as though I laugh when I read '31 KILLED AT VIRGINIA TECH'. I do care about those people and I do care when people are killed by guns.

What I don't care about is whether other people don't like guns or not. I don't care if you love them or hate them. It's your opinion, not mine, and it doesn't matter to me.

Real guns are an issue, yes. The ease at which they can be acquired is an issue. The sort available to the public is an issue, but talking about them here or anywhere else is not going to inflate, or deflate, it, and so their discussion is not an issue.

[Toucan]

You cannot buy alcohol until you are 18 or 21 in some places.
This means it is highly inappropriate for there to be a thread here in regard to favorite alcoholic beverages.

It would be highly inappropriate to be discussing favorite sexual positions here, but it is quite legal for anyone over 18 to have sex.

Guns, alcohol, drugs and sex being discussed in reference to practical application is inappropriate for this site.

ANYTHING that you must be 18 or older to freely participate in is not appropriate for this site.

[Tanis]

Pretty sure that's not your call, Toucan. And if it was, I'd leave.

Also, under the logic that anything requiring an age over 18 to freely participate in, then all discussion of the 2008 Presidential Election should be deleted.

You have to be over 18 to freely vote.

[Toucan]

No it's not my call Tanis. But the decision was made and I support it and I will continue to oppose gun threads discussing there practical application.

[kongurous]

Why was this thread left open, it was ruled discussing guns was in fact legal by the rules of the forum.

And Toucan, you don't decide site policy. Don't talk like you do.