Umm, have to bring up the new "look"

[dogscoff]

Just caught up on this thread. My mony's worth:
I never fire on civilians in SEIV. Not from space anyway. I use lots and lots of ground troops. This makes for very rapid expansion since your population, territory and facilities all go up very quickly.

Hopefully some or all of you will have heard of an English comedian called Eddie Izzard:
<Izzard - approximate quote>
People say that guns don't kill people, it's people that kill people. True. You have to admit that the gun helps though. It's not so effective snaking up on peopl and shouting "BANG!" is it?
</Izzard>

As for the bullet... Not too bothered, although ideally I'd like to see something a bit more space themed for this forum. It's only cosmetic though, I'm far more interested in the content.
(Somewhen someone one suggested a word / excel camoflage look for people reading the forum at work. I support this idea completely=-)

------------------
--
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

[Magus38]

I usually insist it's research...

[MKSheppard]

Will sez:

quote:

---

I believe in most of the arguements listed above. However, all the arguements above are the arguements of hunters, sportsmen. There shouldn't be guns made to kill people and only kill people available to the general public. It's a very sensitive issue, one that is made even more sensitive by the fact that the two sides are so diametrically opposite.

---

Gee Will, how do you explain the early 1900s,
then?

If you had the money back then, you could
buy a freaking MAXIM machine gun thru the
mail, along with semi-auto pistols, which
would make you more well-armed than 99% of
the world's militaries at that point.

Semi auto weapons and Machine guns were
invented in the 1890s, but the militaries
didn't officially adopt them until the
mid 1900s.

And how would you define "made to kill people"?

The main component of the US Marine Corps
M40 Sniper Weapons System is a modified
Remington Model 700, AKA, the most
popular hunting rifle in the US.

And in all the fuss over .50 cal "Sniper
weapons", the libs forget that Barrett
invented the Semi-Auto .50 cal with
detachable magazine for civilian use,
and after it had been on the market for
a few years, the US Military came and
said: "Hmm, this looks good, let's try
it out!"

Lo and behold, Barret's semi-auto .50 cal
was adopted by the military and type classified
as the M-82 Weapons system.

And let's not forget the well known use
by the US Military in WWI, WWII, Korea, and
Vietnam of sawed off shotguns in close-in
fighting.

Your analogy is treading on thin ice here,
Will. I've fired both an 'evil man-killer'
AR-15 and a 'good hunting rifle', and I liked
the AR more because it didn't hurt my shoulder as much. And the ARs round is
HALF as big as the .270 Winchester, one of
the most common rounds used for hunting.

As for the bullet, I say, KEEP IT! Shrapnel
is about WARGAMING, first and foremost! It's
where they got started, and it's where their
bread and butter is (the fact that they
produced SEIV shows how nice they are)

BTW, what caliber round is that? Or is it
something your art boys whipped up?

[This message has been edited by MKSheppard (edited 03 April 2001).]

[dogscoff]

I think the previous poster is right in that all (or at least nearly all) guns are designed to - or are capable of - killing people. Therefore it is pointless trying to differentiate between "military" and "civilian" weapons.

Not quite sure how that's supposed to _help_ the pro- gun ownership argument though=-)

------------------
--
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.

[Sabre21]

This has gotten way out of hand, arguing over the display of a bullet as a header. It is a wargaming forum, not just an SEIV one, and if Shrapnel wants to put a bullet, or a nuc, or even a picture of the playmate of the year up there, it's their choice. I am neither a hunter nor a sportsman, but I do own guns and have used them all my life, my first at the age of 12. I used to buy my own ammo too then. I learned how to use guns, and would never ever had considered taking one to school, park, or any other inappropriate place. The only way my guns are gonna kill someone is if that someone breaks into my house. What's wrong with today's society is that parents don't have the fortitude, patience, or take the time to teach their kids what's right and whats wrong. It's easier to blame things such as guns as the problem. I have 3 sons, all of which learned how to shoot and handle firearms properly by the time they were 10. But it's not just about firearms, it's life in general. Way too many parents are so busy with the rat race that they forget the really important things in life, such as their kids! For those kids that pull a trigger at a school, the parents are the ones that should be beat, for failing to be good parents. You guys got me on a roll here.

Back to the original discussion, it's Shrapnels right to display what they like, be thankfull that they have the consideration and caring to even put up a BB let alone ask for opinions. If I had all the money I wasted on computer games that were garbage and never worked as advertized I could buy a new hi speed computer....or maybe another gun..hehe

Sabre21

[Lion of High Park]

Interesting thread. And I'd just like to comment that this again shows the remarkable attention to customer support that the people at Shrapnel Games and MM have always shown. As another poster has said, you would never see this kind of dedication to their customers from one of the larger companies.

I just came from the survey, and found that it is currently almost exactly evenly split between, yes, no and don't care with regards to the bullet logo on the intel forums. Personally, I don't mind the bullet from a political standpoint for a wargaming forum (I'm Canadian from a big city, and my personal views on guns leans towards minimizing their presence in the hands of private citizens. But the gun control debate seems a little too large for an issue like decoration of the forum.). From an aesthetic point of view, however, the bullet doesn't really do a lot for me.

[dogscoff]

Sabre is right to say that this is getting out of hand. I think people's opinions on the politics of gun ownership and their opinions on the bullet image are getting confused. The two are not necessarily the same: I for one disagree with public gun ownership but understand and accept Shrapnel's choice of imagery.

Personally I think that if we keep talking about this gun ownership thing we risk bringing bad feeling into the forum: Whichever side of the debate you come down on you have to admit it's one of those issues where debate tends to have little effect on peoples' opinions.
I've had arguments on these sorts of issues before and the only resolution is to agree to disagree.

I'm not afraid of conflicting opinions or debate and I'm not telling anyone what to do but we are way off topic I for one am leaving this thread alone as of now.

------------------
There is an exception to every rule. Including this one.


[This message has been edited by dogscoff (edited 03 April 2001).]

[dmm]

IT'S NOT A BULLET!!!!

It's a lipstick dispenser.
They are trying to attract more females.

[CaptSpoogy]

For me, it's not an issue about guns and gun control - I just don't think it fits in very well with the form.

I said this earlier and someone else mentioned it as well, since it's the "intel" forum - some sort of "Top Secret" stamp motif would be better suited.

In Canada, they have introduced new controls where you obtain a special license that allows you to buy ammunition which I think is a good idea - but I think the government having too much info about the owners can lead to trouble. For example, if the police are called to a domestic dispute and they look up that one of the people have a gun - and they going to come with guns drawn?

I think the license is good - but we got to do more keeping illegal guns off the streets - that will make a bigger difference.

[This message has been edited by capt_spoogy (edited 03 April 2001).]

[CaptSpoogy]

Some additional Comments:

I must admit that I'm against hunting for sport. I think it is stupid - what kind of challenge is it to kill an animal with a high power rifle?

What's the problem with going out with a camera, finding the animals and taking a nice picture of it? What purpose does it serve to kill it for sport? It's different if you intend to eat it or need it to survive, but just to kill it to say "I killed this, isn't it great?"

To those that take these lives - I'd like you to take out a deer with your bare hands - on equal terms - or perhaps a bear.

I know this is out of topic and will be Last post in the SEIV regarding this.