The Big Gun Control Thread

Edwin wrote:

I'm not one to defend the NRA because f*ck them, but that's a pretty blatant misrepresentation. No where on the NRA-ILA site linked to in that article does it say enemy or even characterize them as enemies. It's just a donors list. Does that make the Mother Jones article I posted earlier an enemies list too? Or any of the other lists of donors when we fought back against anti-gay organizations?

We have plenty of other valid reasons to hate the NRA.

Fair point. I'm going to edit it to use the NRA's terminology.

NRA's anti-gun organizations and celebrities list

National Organizations With Anti-Gun Policies
The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to anti-gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions.
Anti-Gun Individuals & Celebrities

The following celebrities and national figures have lent their name and notoriety to anti-gun causes, speaking out for anti-gun legislation and providing a voice for anti-gun organizations

Farscry wrote:
Axon wrote:

Very interesting article on Eurogamer: How Video Games Fund Arms Manufacturers

When LaPierre criticised games he left out the ones with the realistic models. We can safely assume it was for the most cynical of reasons now.

Yup, I assumed that this is why LaPierre did not list the realistic shooters.

Likewise. I think I said so somewhere in here. Or maybe just thought it. Either way, I don't think the cynical take was out of line then, it sure as hell isn't now. The NRA's role as the political wing of the gun industry is pretty clear.

Wow, the Rams and Chiefs huh? Are people in Missouri supposed to stop watching football and baseball? (The Chiefs are in KC Missouri right?)

KingGorilla wrote:

Wow, the Rams huh?

Looking at the list, St. Louis is well represented with several businesses and schools.

And I don't know what else you would call this list but an enemies list. I would assume most any activist organization has one of some sort or another. It's not damning that they have one, it's who they include on their list.

Student shot, wounded at Atlanta middle school.
Thankfully this one didn't escalate into widespread tragedy. Apparently the suspect somehow got the weapon past metal detectors which they're still figuring out. My concern would be that this one case is used as a model to support the hiring of a police officer or other guard for every school which I don't think would solve the problem either.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Axon wrote:

Very interesting article on Eurogamer: How Video Games Fund Arms Manufacturers

When LaPierre criticised games he left out the ones with the realistic models. We can safely assume it was for the most cynical of reasons now.

Yup, I assumed that this is why LaPierre did not list the realistic shooters.

Likewise. I think I said so somewhere in here. Or maybe just thought it. Either way, I don't think the cynical take was out of line then, it sure as hell isn't now. The NRA's role as the political wing of the gun industry is pretty clear.

You did. It was well observed then and stuck with me. That article reminded me of that issue.

lostlobster wrote:

Wow. It never occured to me. Is there any way to know which games pay licensing fees? If they use the names, they're paying I guess. My time with the Battlefield series might be over.

That was my initial reaction as well. However the developer would argue that they have to have access to the guns to model them accurately. Is that fair? How do Bohemia Interactive model all their kit as a comparison?

How do Bohemia Interactive model all their kit as a comparison?

Bad example - they do professional sims for NATO, so in their public games they are *reducing* the fidelity...

IMAGE(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UOoJ0RGUG70/UQ0yp8EJHMI/AAAAAAAAKxs/GbWLvUfP3cg/s421/irony2.jpg)

Axon wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Axon wrote:

Very interesting article on Eurogamer: How Video Games Fund Arms Manufacturers

When LaPierre criticised games he left out the ones with the realistic models. We can safely assume it was for the most cynical of reasons now.

Yup, I assumed that this is why LaPierre did not list the realistic shooters.

Likewise. I think I said so somewhere in here. Or maybe just thought it. Either way, I don't think the cynical take was out of line then, it sure as hell isn't now. The NRA's role as the political wing of the gun industry is pretty clear.

You did. It was well observed then and stuck with me. That article reminded me of that issue.

lostlobster wrote:

Wow. It never occured to me. Is there any way to know which games pay licensing fees? If they use the names, they're paying I guess. My time with the Battlefield series might be over.

That was my initial reaction as well. However the developer would argue that they have to have access to the guns to model them accurately. Is that fair? How do Bohemia Interactive model all their kit as a comparison?

DICE (the battlefield guys) use airsoft models.

Points accepted Robear and Edwin. So are we talking CoD and MoH games them? I'm just not that knowledgable on who does what but perhaps we should be.

I don't know, but I assume anyone who uses brand names or images in games pays royalties...

There is the question of whether a gun that has not been in production for decades actually requires licensing. Does anyone make Bren or Sten guns anymore? Schmeissers? Lugers?

Robear wrote:

I don't know, but I assume anyone who uses brand names or images in games pays royalties...

There is the question of whether a gun that has not been in production for decades actually requires licensing. Does anyone make Bren or Sten guns anymore? Schmeissers? Lugers?

Yes to all, but I imagine they are past patent in any case. They are most likely manufactured by folks with no connection to the original IP.

I remember some studios going to great lengths of pride to show off "we're using real weapon sounds" in their games.

I think this was a popular thing back a few years ago, when it was easy to get stellar sound design while still having lack-luster graphics (early CS days and circa 2001-2004 shooters).

I also recall watching some dev diary from MW2 or BlOps that detailed the great pains they went through to make sure everything about the guns was animated properly. The bolts and firing mechanisms animating with each shot, the entire reload process, everything. I always assumed this meant the animators and modelers had significant hands-on with real life weapons to get it all right.

McIrishJihad wrote:

I remember some studios going to great lengths of pride to show off "we're using real weapon sounds" in their games.

I think this was a popular thing back a few years ago, when it was easy to get stellar sound design while still having lack-luster graphics (early CS days and circa 2001-2004 shooters).

I also recall watching some dev diary from MW2 or BlOps that detailed the great pains they went through to make sure everything about the guns was animated properly. The bolts and firing mechanisms animating with each shot, the entire reload process, everything. I always assumed this meant the animators and modelers had significant hands-on with real life weapons to get it all right.

Some do, some don't. My range is frequently used by Zipper Interactive, Valve, Bungie, 343 and other Seattle based dev studios (they have signed posters of their games hanging).

Paleocon wrote:
Robear wrote:

I don't know, but I assume anyone who uses brand names or images in games pays royalties...

There is the question of whether a gun that has not been in production for decades actually requires licensing. Does anyone make Bren or Sten guns anymore? Schmeissers? Lugers?

Yes to all, but I imagine they are past patent in any case. They are most likely manufactured by folks with no connection to the original IP.

The AR-15, FAL, G3 and more are public domain now too so it's really only newer weapons that you still have to pay licensing for.

Oh, good to know.

Something interesting I stumbled across so I provide here for education.

Wheellock Wikipedia Entry[/url]]In 1517 and 1518, the first gun control laws banning the wheellock were proclaimed by the Emperor Maximilian I, initially in Austria and later throughout the Holy Roman Empire. Several Italian states followed suit in the 1520s and 1530s — another argument used by the pro-German camp.

As Lisa Jardine relates in her account of the assassination of William the Silent of the Netherlands, in 1584, the small size, ease of concealment and user-friendly loading aspect of the wheellock, compared to more arduous hand-held weapons, meant that it was used for curtailing the lives of public figures, such as Francis, Duke of Guise and William himself. Jardine also argues that a stray wheellock pistol shot may have been responsible for the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of French Huguenots in 1572.

Supposedly, Holy Roman emperor Maximilian I was an avid collector of advanced firearms for his own use.

IMAGE(http://25.media.tumblr.com/ecff8eab8257fe94c04bc2bbda07492f/tumblr_mhinlyZsw61qat9xfo1_500.gif)

Anyone following the Chris Kyle shooting? I can't decide if it has any relevance to the gun control debate. It could be just one of those odd happenings that have no wider meaning, but there's something about a trained special operations sniper with four combat tours in Iraq getting gunned down at a gun club by a mentally unstable acquaintance that seems symbolic of gun culture.

Or am I viewing it that way because I am not part of the gun culture? I mean, taking a guy with mental problems to a gun range seems like asking for trouble to me. If I had said something like that to Kyle, would he have said I just didn't understand guns and veterans problems and the healing power of shooting weaponry?

Edit- I've seen references to people taking veterans with PTSD to shooting ranges for therapy, and while it may work, there's probably a safer way to do it than this way.

Once someone is inside your reaction time, they can do whatever they want to you. Certainly, having an unstable person experienced with weapons within a few feet of you with a loaded gun would be a losing situation for anyone, no matter how fast or good they were. Even Wild Bill Hickok couldn't get away from that math.

Early reports said his back was turned, but we'll have to see whether that was true. I'm just wondering if we're now dealing with people who have unrealistic senses of reality. On the gun forums, people we're saying stuff like, "He was betrayed by his brother- I can't believe a fellow vet would do that to him." Which fits into this idea that by joining the military and serving overseas, you become a saint rather than a person with flaws. But that's kind of a separate issue.

I'm just wondering if gun culture looks at every problem and sees a gun as part of the solution. It's not enough that a gun be a useful tool for a certain job like shooting an animal, the gun now has becomes something symbolic and emotional to some gun owners.

(I don't have any particularly hatred for guns. I've always thought they were pretty cool. But they are like a hammer or saw to me. Not something I'd bring into the house unless I had a use for it)

I have a question about Hitler's Gold.

I am working to secure Aid Funds for a non profit law firm. The short story is that this is to assist low income, homeless, disabled veterans in filing and securing their benefits. I am submitting proposals to everyone under the sun.

The NRA has at their core a lot of veterans, at times have been very sympathetic to veterans issues.

Would any of you think less of me if this firm were funded in part, or in whole by the NRA?

KingGorilla wrote:

Would any of you think less of me if this firm were funded in part, or in whole by the NRA?

Not me. At least some of the NRA's money would be getting put to a good use that way.

Farscry wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Would any of you think less of me if this firm were funded in part, or in whole by the NRA?

Not me. At least some of the NRA's money would be getting put to a good use that way.

And the NRA would be able to say it helps down-on-their luck veterans, which might make some people more comfortable to donating to them, which would then give them more money to buy politicians. You never can tell.

If the "National Rifle Association Home for Disadvantaged and Possibly Crazy Combat Veterans" opens near me, though, we're going to have words.

No, they all live in urban blighted ghettos with the other undesirables. Good news for veterans, I am pissed off about that.

KingGorilla wrote:

No, they all live in urban blighted ghettos with the other undesirables. Good news for veterans, I am pissed off about that.

Relax—that state of affairs won't last long, given how many people have bumper stickers saying "I Support Our Troops."

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Farscry wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Would any of you think less of me if this firm were funded in part, or in whole by the NRA?

Not me. At least some of the NRA's money would be getting put to a good use that way.

And the NRA would be able to say it helps down-on-their luck veterans, which might make some people more comfortable to donating to them, which would then give them more money to buy politicians. You never can tell.

I don't consider that concern (which I do share) to outweigh the needs that the money will meet. Unless we're talking about actual blood money here, I have a hard time saying that a non-profit/charitable organization should turn down money from sources they find politically objectionable.

That's one of the few times I really think the apt metaphor is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

KG - Given the overlap in the Venn diagram between veterans and NRA members, I'd say that you *should* be seeking money from the NRA for your non-profit, regardless of your own political leanings.

Funkenpants wrote:

Anyone following the Chris Kyle shooting? I can't decide if it has any relevance to the gun control debate. It could be just one of those odd happenings that have no wider meaning, but there's something about a trained special operations sniper with four combat tours in Iraq getting gunned down at a gun club by a mentally unstable acquaintance that seems symbolic of gun culture.

You mean besides how it destroys the whole "if we had more people with guns, shootings wouldn't happen" argument? I mean, if a military sniper with 160 confirmed kills can't defend himself against a determined idiot, how is a school janitor going to do it?

edosan wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

Anyone following the Chris Kyle shooting? I can't decide if it has any relevance to the gun control debate. It could be just one of those odd happenings that have no wider meaning, but there's something about a trained special operations sniper with four combat tours in Iraq getting gunned down at a gun club by a mentally unstable acquaintance that seems symbolic of gun culture.

You mean besides how it destroys the whole "if we had more people with guns, shootings wouldn't happen" argument? I mean, if a military sniper with 160 confirmed kills can't defend himself against a determined idiot, how is a school janitor going to do it?

Yes and no.

The extension of this argument is that law enforcement officers should not have guns because they would be powerless to stop a determined felon.

As with most scenarios involving use of force, it is a whole lot more complicated than that.

Paleocon wrote:

Yes and no.

The extension of this argument is that law enforcement officers should not have guns because they would be powerless to stop a determined felon.

As with most scenarios involving use of force, it is a whole lot more complicated than that.

It's not clear which "this argument" you feel is arguing for unarmed law enforcement. As I read it, edosan is pointing out that the pro-gun argument that the solution for violence is always more guns will have a fairly hard time fitting this shooting into their position.

And I agree that a shooting like Chris Kyle's is a real challenge for that argument. Fortunately, I don't think anyone in-thread has seriously taken the position that the solution for any shooting is more guns - like you said, it's a lot more complicated than that.