Roleplayers Seek Removal of Nerf Gun Ban

An anonymous reader writes "LARP fans at Bowling Green State University may have to contend with a crippled game of Humans vs. Zombies after the University banned Nerf guns on campus. In the live-action game, players are either humans or zombies. The goal of the game is to change all the humans into zombies, or for the humans to evade capture by zombies for a certain amount of time. To defend themselves against zombies, humans may use Nerf guns. Players (most likely the human ones) are petitioning the University to lift the ban. The game had troubles back in 2006, when participating students were arrested. That issue has since been cleared up."

Comments

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're banning nerf guns now? Why?

What are we now, "Land of the fee, home of the scared?"

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing that motivates gun control in general: totemism.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty sure that nerf guns don't kill people. And you can argue all you want about people being the ones who kill people.. a person without a weapon is far less likely to splatter brains everywhere within seconds of deciding to hurt someone.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

...a person without a weapon is far less likely to splatter brains everywhere within seconds of deciding to hurt someone.

What's a weapon? You can splatter someone's brains everywhere in seconds with almost anything.

Re:Why?

[RKBA]

The way I heard it was: "Land of the Fee, Home of the Slave"

Re:Why?

[modecx]

I tell you, some people are crazy, fun-sucking assholes. My cousin'(s) mother wouldn't ever let anything capable of launching a projectile anywhere near her children. I tried to play some NERF wars with him back when he was about 10 and my family got chewed out because she's some kind of anti gun nazi, you know because a 9mm Glock and a tube that launches foam spheres are apparently really very much alike. Now, he's a sad shell of an uncreative, pasty, frumpy and lethargic ~16.5 year old, and currently his chances of ever even being touched by an unrelated female are somewhat worse than the average /.er's chance of scoring with something bi-pedal.

Seriously, Stephen King's Carrie was allowed more opportunities for fun. If fanatically obsessive parents could be called "helicopter parents", she's the AH-64 gunship parent. Someone similar to her was undoubtedly responsible for this anti-nerf hullabaloo. If the quantity of pirates in the world is inversely related to global warming, I contend that this is possible: the number of school shootings could be proportional to the quantity of obsessive and dominating parents.

Re:Why?

[AdmiralAudio]

a person without a weapon

Well that's convenient, considering the fact that literally anything can become a weapon!

Re:Why?

[code4fun]

They can pry it from my cold dead hands.

Re:Why?

[Ardaen]

Oh, and it is too hard to develop other interests besides guns? Are you really blaming that for this kids issues? Sounded more like he was blaming "fanatically obsessive" parents to me, and that little story was illustrating how they where "fanatically obsessive."

I've got to agree to an extent, you've passed the point of going overboard and being harmful long long before you've reduced your home to padded walls.

Re:Why?

[MrNaz]

You've obviously never dropped a baseball bat from an aircraft. I did. Oops.

Re:Why?

[Valcrus]

Well its obvious of course. This whole neft game is just another way to train our future school shooters. They played computer games until they started to crack down on them now they are going to the next lvl. Real life training with projectile weapons. **BTW I'm just kidding. Altho I can see someone trying to use this as a reason behind the ban. That or you will see someone charged with assualt due to shooting a bystander.

Re:Why?

[Valcrus]

I'm going back to bed. I can't even spell Nerf yet...

Re:Why?

[budgenator]

And the person without a firearm is more likely to have his/her Braaaains splatter by a whacko-job that does. Canada has some every effective hand-gun controlls and now liquor store are held up by people with bazookas!

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

Also, a knife, a baseball bat, or the like.. they don't accidentally kill innocent bystanders blocks away. so i want to kill some guy and i run at him with a knife, you jump in the way and get stabbed and die. i swing a baseball bat at the head of some guy with intent to kill and you get in the way, you die.
i fail to see your logic here.

Re:Why?

[jtev]

Consider that most universities consider themselves to be the social, as well as educational center of their students lives. Consider that many universities have roleplaying groups. Consider that many students are captive in the university, due to freshman housing requirements or visa requirements. Consider that this is a state school, paid for by public moneys. All of a sudden this gets to be a little less cut and dried. We're talking about groups of consenting adults having a little bit of fun and blowing off some steam, and even if it is a little odd, it's the sort of thing university students do, and given earlier posts in this article, it's probably one of the safer activities one can do on campus.

Re:Why?

[alexgieg]

Even with your angry 6 year old who somehow managed to unlock his dad's (otherwise perfectly safe) gun cabinet and stick a clip into a pistol.

Children play with whatever is new and strange. The safest thing a gun-carrying father of a 6 year old can do is thus to make it absolutely sure said gun isn't something new and strange. From the very moment his child is able to not go around swallowing small objects, he should sit down with him and start presenting him the gun. Unmount it, clean it, teach the child to do both things, teach him to shot cans, show him what happens to a chicken when it's shot (a good opportunity to teach the children what is that "death" thing she had heard about, plus why she shouldn't play with her food), and so on and so forth. This way, even if it happens that the child comes into contact with a weapon unsupervised, she will know how to behave and, most important, to never, ever, point it to another person or animal, no matter what.

Preventing a child from doing harm by blocking his access to something dangerous surely works. But it's just addressing the symptoms, not the actual problem. What is it? Simply put, the lack of "responsibility development" in the child. Some 150 years ago a 13 years old managed to be more mature than the typical 20 years old of today. The reason for that is that modern day parents have the strongly misplaced desire of shielding their children from maturity, i.e., of shielding them from the "nasty things" in the world, rather than allowing and providing for their growth at their actual potential.

Stop holding them back, start pushing them towards what they can achieve, and these accidents simply won't happen. Or, rather, if they do, they'll be actual accidents, and not the necessary outcome of keeping children clueless just for the sake of it.

Re:Why?

[Himring]

News report:
A convenient store clerk was killed late yesterday during an armed robbery. The assailants were using nerf bats. The slaying took approximately 9 hours....

Re:Why?

[bcattwoo]

they don't accidentally kill innocent bystanders blocks away. ... i run at him with a knife, you jump in the way and get stabbed and die. That's a hell of a jump.

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

all he has to do is be standing right next to him, how the hell do you expect to accidentally shoot a bystander? bullets move pretty fast, the bystander is going to have to be in close proximity to get in the way. i do admit i didn't exactly define all the positions of the actors for this scenario. granted it probably is harder to get in the way of a melee attack, however, it is still possible.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Never, ever, point it to another person or animal, no matter what.

Except, apparently, chickens.

Re:Why?

[oyenstikker]

Parent teaches 6 year old child about guns and gun safety. 6 year old shoots somebody. Parent is charged.

Parent hides gun in the house and tells 6 year old child nothing about it. 6 year old shoots somebody. Parent is not charged.

There is something very wrong here. Maybe we shouldn't teach our children anything, just put them in a padded room for 18 years. Then nothing can be blamed on us.

Re:Why?

[aunticrist]

Please. I was shown how to clean, take apart, reassemble, load and fire rifles and other firearms when I was seven. My family never owned a gun locker and I knew where both the firearms and the ammo were growing up. I was also taught gun safety and basic common sense. All of this, and somehow i managed not to go out and shoot someone at a young age. Imagine that.

Re:Why?

[Phisbut]

Canada has some every effective hand-gun controlls and now liquor store are held up by people with bazookas!

I've yet to see a news story mentionning the use of bazookas during an armed robbery. Care to share your sources?

Re:Why?

[phoenixwade]

I mean, since a chair can be used as a weapon, we might as well let anyone have a machine gun, too, otherwise we're all hypocrites? You're right, a chair can be a weapon - lets make Balmer illegal.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

Cause of death was asphyxiation from the victim laughing too hard, he swallowed his tongue.

Re:Why?

[Torvaun]

I'm not that good at bow hunting. Or would you have me get rid of the sticks with razor sharp broadheads on the end too?

How about people with swords? This is a geek site, there's probably a bunch of us. Those are dangerous weapons too. Luckily, your kid is probably only going to kill himself mishandling those.

A gun does not have to be a danger to people around it, it just needs to be respected as much as we teach kids to respect cars by looking both ways. If you have guns, teach your kids about them, show them how to use them safely, and store them securely (trigger locks, gun safes, ammo and gun kept in separate locations). Just remember that education is an important part of that, because it's entirely possible for the kid to run into guns somewhere else, and you don't want that to be the first time.

Re:Why?

[AvitarX]

I would think that nerf darts littering the campus would be a more likely reason. Wither that or some important visitor got hit by a stray.

Re:Why?

[bcattwoo]

In a "perfect world" where everybody hit their intended target on the first shot every time, your statement would be true. However, you are aware that people miss on occasion, right? And that those bullets can travel a LONG ways? I can't recall ever hearing about someone being killed be a "stray knife".

Note: I am not advocating for gun control. But trying to say that knives or bats can cause the same level of mayhem is silly.

Re:Why?

[kklein]

Yup. My dad only even took us shooting maybe twice in my whole childhood, but once a year we'd do maintenance on the guns. He'd take them apart and show us how they worked and how to keep them clean and rust-free. I now know a lot more about how to take apart a gun than actually fire it, but I don't have that stupid irrational fear I see in a lot of people without any particular experience with guns.

They're just guns. Don't point them at people or anything else you don't want to kill. That's basically the only rule we had, and it worked very well. A lot of times when you introduce someone to guns the first time they fool around with them before the bullets are in and point them at you. When that has happened to me (a couple times), I instinctively hit the ground. Then I stand up and take the fucking thing away from them. I think a lot of adults who never really dealt with guns as children are dumber than little kids who have. What kind of moron points a gun at someone???

Re:Why?

[RonTheHurler]

Hear hear!

I remember vividly when I was 5 years old and my parents took me out and taught me to shoot a pistol. It scared the crap out of me! But, I learned to do it and for my whole life (and of my siblings) there have been loaded guns in nightstand drawers and other places. We all knew where they were. We also knew WHAT they were.

Ok, so what. Well, when I was about 8 years old, playing (unsupervised) at a friend's house, he snuck into his parent's room and brought out a handgun for us to play with. I could tell he didn't even know how to hold it. I forget the exact details of what happened next, but I convinced him to put it away and we left the house until a grown-up came home. I'm pretty sure I averted a probable catastrophe that day - all because my parents had taught me how to shoot.

Put away your gut reactions and look at the statistics. Boats are more likely to kill your kids than handguns are. Swimming pools are MUCH more likely to kill a neighborhood kid than a loaded, unlocked handgun in the same house. You wouldn't have a pool in the backyard and not teach your kids how to swim, would you?

I forget the quote- something about freedom and limiting the freedoms of all of us based on the failings of the least of us. It's a good quote if someone can find it.

And, just in case you're wondering, I do not own any handguns or other guns. My kids DO play with toy guns (as do I, with the kids).
Why don't I own a (real) gun? Because I don't like cleaning them mostly. I'd have one if I had a friend who enjoyed target shooting, but I don't (at least not in this state).

But I do LIKE it that some of my neighbors have handguns in their houses, for the same reason that lo-jack works to reduce all the car thefts in a city. If thieves don't know which house has it, they have to assume there's a risk that any house could have it, and that's a significant deterrent. Again with the statistics, look at the violent crime rates in states with tight gun controls, vs. those with liberal gun ownership. No significant difference.

Buy a toy gun for your kids at http://www.backyardartillery.com/
Or get a catapult at http://www.catapultkits.com/
And teach them the science of ballistic motion while you're at it.
We need more people with an understanding of basic physics.

Re:Why?

[Nimey]

Yes, well said. I'm planning on teaching my kids about guns when they're of age, and will probably do as you suggest, with the exception of shooting a chicken (not many chickens 'round here)[1]. Guns are tools, useful but very dangerous for those who don't understand them.

I wouldn't mind if firearms training was made mandatory in my area. Not ownership, mind, but training to use them safely.

[1] Heh, maybe I'll substitute a spammer. ;-)

Re:Why?

[esocid]

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous arguments I've heard. Letting your 6 year old handle a gun? That's only going to teach him that it's ok to handle a gun whenever he wants to. If you do insist I'd say talk to your 6 year old, who just began to read not long ago, about guns and the caution needed to handle it. You don't just slap a glock in his hand and say "here's how you shoot stuff." And you don't kill something just to make an example, what does that teach your kid, that it's ok to point guns at living things even if you aren't hunting.
I was introduced to guns after 13 so don't give me that crap about kids will play with them just because they are new. I recognized the dangers of guns, and even had toy guns and a bb gun at one point. My dad taught me the dangers of guns, but not by example, and I've grown up perfectly fine knowing how to handle them. The point you are trying to make about 13 year olds 150 years ago is moot. Back then 13 year olds were parents, are you advocating that now too? You can't just compare one thing about culture back then and exclude everything else.

Cars are also dangerous, should you put your 6 year old in the driver's seat and let him have a shot at it?

Re:Why?

[Colonel Korn]

Please show me how the illiterate, uneducated 13 year old children from 1858 are more mature than the 20 year old children today. I don't want a "common wisdom" (i.e. bullshit) answer, I want some real evidence. Don't have any?

Ever wondered why educated people are far less likely to have a gun in the house?

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

never intended to imply that they can cause the same level of mayhem, only that even melee weapons can( though i do admit its highly improbable) hurt/maim/murder innocent bystanders, loose your grip on a bat and it flies into someone else and other such things, are possible, dismissing them like the AC that i first answered to is just being ignorant.

any and all weapons can hurt innocent bystanders, some are better at it than others, in the right hands most weapons can reduce any error in their use to almost zero, i mean look at charles whitman.

Re:Why?

[edmicman]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! It's refreshing to hear some common sense among the pansie whiners that seem to be everywhere these days.

Re:Why?

[westlake]

From the very moment his child is able to not go around swallowing small objects, he should sit down with him and start presenting him the gun
Unmount it, clean it, teach the child to do both things, teach him to shot cans, show him what happens to a chicken when it's shot
a good opportunity to teach the children what is that "death" thing she had heard about

I can't imagine anything worse.

Three to Six Years

Child's Perception: Child thinks death is reversible; temporary, like going to sleep or when a parent goes to work; believes that people who die will come back

1. "Magical thinking"; believes their thoughts, actions, word caused the death; or can bring deceased back; death is punishment for bad behavior
2. Still greatly impacted by parent's emotional state
3. Has difficulty handling abstract concepts such as heaven
4. Regressive behaviors; bed wetting, security blanket, thumb sucking, etc.
5. Difficulty verbalizing therefore acts out feelings
6. Increased aggression - more irritable, aggressive play
7. Will ask the same questions repeatedly in efforts to begin making sense of loss
8. Only capable of showing sadness for short periods of time
9. Escapes into play
10. Somatic symptoms
11. Hungers for affection and physical contact, even from strangers
12. Connects events that don't belong connected
13. May exhibit little anxiety due to belief that deceased is coming back

Children's Understanding of Death

Re:Why?

[edmicman]

Ummmm...isn't that the whole point - to TEACH your children responsibility so they would never do those things? That outlier you described - the depressed adolescent teenage daughter.....were her parents involved in her life, did she have a close knit group of friends and family, did they *talk* to each other beginning with an early age?

Children should have a chance to be kids, but it's also up to you to develop them into reasonable human beings. School's not going to do the whole thing, nor are their friends. There's no reason you can't bring a child up to be a Good Person who's not irresponsible.

With all the fear that you live with, do you even bother going outside? It's much safer indoors isolated from the world!

Re:Why?

[CastrTroy]

The problem is that guns often end up in the wrong hands. In the right hands, they can be quite a useful tool. In the wrong hands, they can be very destructive. Ensuring they only end up in the right hands, and that the right hands don't become wrong hands later on, is a very difficult problem.

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

Now? We've been that way for the last generation at least. It started with not letting children "fail" and given trophies to all teams/participants because we didn't want to ruin anyone's self esteem. We've just slowly graduated to the extreme of not letting adults play with children's toys because it might frighten others.

There will always be stupid people. We need to put a stop to letting them run everything.

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

How about proximity, then. In order to kill with a knife or a baseball bat, I have to put myself in potential harm's way. With a gun I can kill you from a couple football fields away (though probably not with a handgun), or at least far enough where you can't retaliate unless you also have a gun.

I'm not particularly for or against gun control, but the comparison of guns to any other potential weapon is simply ridiculous.

Re:Why?

[SDF-7]

Probably not that easily if you're a zombie, though.

Re:Why?

[psychodelicacy]

But you're assuming that children are capable of levels of rational thought and knowing right from wrong which they just aren't. You can teach children not to play with matches, but a lot of them will still do it because they overestimate their ability to evaluate the risks.

Adolescents are notoriously unstable (the raging hormones aren't just a myth and can have some serious effects) and there's often little correlation between the relationship parents think they have with their child and the relationship which that child perceives.

I have very little fear of going outside - but then, I live in a country where possession of firearms is largely illegal.

Re:Why?

[westlake]

Parent hides gun in the house and tells 6 year old child nothing about it. 6 year old shoots somebody. Parent is not charged.

Real-world examples, please:

Charges Filed Against Family Friend In Child Shooting
Jerome Black charged with criminally negligent homicide

(MEMPHIS, TN 3/17/2008)

Police have filed charges against a man in the case of a six-year-old child killed while playing with a gun.

Charlris Fleming was pronounced dead at Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center Monday morning.

Police say Jerome Black admitted bringing a gun into the Greenbriar apartment in Frayser. He reportedly said he hid the loaded handgun under a couch cushion.

A judge set bond for Black at $100,000.

In an unrelated case, Black is also facing a robbery charge as well as a charge for carrying a weapon on school property.

Charlris and a seven-year-old were playing with the gun in a bedroom. The revolver went off and Charlris was shot in the face. Neighbors say the victim's mother, Black and a third adult were in a separate room.

Paramedics rushed the boy to Le Bonheur Childrens' Medical Center. He died while in the hospital.

"It's devastating," said Susan Helms of Le Bonheur. "This was a preventable tragedy, this did not have to happen."

According to Helms, last year the hospital treated 50 kids for gunshot wounds. That's nearly one child every week.

"We would suggest families with young children not have [guns] at all," she said. "But if they have to have them, they need to purchase a gun safe, keep guns unloaded and locked away."

She says young children often don't know the difference between the real thing and a toy and even if they do, they don't understand the consequences.

"Kids are curious, they are going to find it, it's not a matter of if they'll find it..they will find it," she said.

Although some states have laws requiring adults to keep guns safely locked up when children are around, the District Attorney's office says Tennessee is not one of them.

Black will be formally charged in court Tuesday morning.

Charges Filed Against Family Friend In Child Shooting

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

picture being in a crowded area with a baseball bat, you wind up to swing and smack someone who is behind you, killing them; still a stretch but it is still possible to accidentally kill with even just a baseball bat.

Re:Why?

[lostokie]

Gun control only keeps guns out of the "right hands". "Wrong hands" will find access to guns, regardless of the law.

Re:Why?

[Miseph]

I don't know, I think you could assign at least a couple percentage points of blame to the irresponsible gun owner who let one fall into the hands of a child. It turns out that people who despise guns and refuse to have them in their homes never have the problem of their children finding their gun.

For the record, I oppose most gun control laws, particularly those on guns intended for combat of some sort (sorry, the 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms in case we need another revolution, not so the NRA can take pot shots at endangered species) but personally refuse to own or use guns. What I do support are fairly draconian punishments for gun owners who act irresponsibly (like letting children get their hands on them without supervision or buying them for people who are not allowed to buy their own) and private citizens voluntarily disarming themselves.

As for mandatory gun safety courses at school... let's make a deal, we can have that so long as the sex education course is equally funded and has an equivalently varied curriculum. If you want abstinence only education, you get that for both, if you want comprehensive education, you still get it for both.

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

AFAIK Texas has gun carry laws, and have a lower incidence of gun related crime compared to other states with far stricter gun control laws. you are less likely to pull a gun on someone to mug them when theres a good chance the person your point the gun at has a gun him/herself.

imagine how far that kid at Virgina Tech would have gone if they had the same portion of the population carrying a gun as Texas.

Re:Why?

[ckaminski]

Grumble Grumble... steve balmer... grumble grumble...

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

That's a ridiculous reach. Children have been shooting guns since there have been guns. They've been responsible for using them to get food, protect their family/land/what have you, and we as a society have gotten along just fine until the last 40 years or so. That's what, 400 years of "hand-held" guns and 40-50 years (being generous here) of a "problem" with accidents? Yeah, you can say there were accidents before, we just don't know about them. That's most likely true, but accidents happen with adults too.

To say that it's obscene to teach a child about guns, or let them fire them, is a real stretch though. Guns serve a purpose. Perhaps that purpose has eroded into something less than it once was, but it's still there at least in part. Many people still use guns to get their food. Some people legitimately use them for safety, not from other people, but from large animals. (If you've ever been to Alaska, you'll know most of the population there carry weapons for scaring off bears etc.)

I'm not a big gun proponent, I gave all of mine to my brother a few years after my first child was born because I simply wasn't shooting them enough to bother keeping them and her mom didn't want them around her. Not a big issue to me, but I still have access to every one of my weapons should I ever feel the need.

I grew up shooting guns. The first time I remember shooting, I was 5 years old and the gun was longer than I was tall. It was a 22 caliber rifle used for hunting rabbits and small game to have food. We're not all lucky enough to have enough money to buy all our food.

What would be obscene would be allowing your children to go hungry because you never taught them how to take care of themselves. What would be obscene is pretending that guns don't exist and being irresponsible enough not to teach your children about how to treat guns with respect and safety.

Re:Why?

[LWATCDR]

"The safest thing a gun-carrying father of a 6 year old can do is thus to make it absolutely sure said gun isn't something new and strange."
No the safest thing is to not carry a gun. Gun owners are far more likely to die from a gun shot than none gun owners. That is a statistical fact. Of course that may or may not apply to the individual.
If you must own a gun then yes I think teaching your child gun safety is a positive thing. But even if you do teach your child gun safety locking the guns in a gun safe is STILL a very very very good idea. Even if your child is the most responsible person in the world that doesn't mean his friends will be.
As for shielding your children? I am actually all for it. I think too many parents spend to much time pushing children into the adult world and or not enough time protecting their childhood. I think it would be great if every child thought that they lived in a safe comfortable world where they would be protected and nurtured.
Now when we are talking about adolecnets and teens... Yea all too often they are being given all the "rights" of adults with out the responsibilities.

Re:Why?

[Psmylie]

"A lot of times when you introduce someone to guns the first time they fool around with them before the bullets are in and point them at you. "

Reminds me of when I went to a firing range with an inexperienced friend who likes to talk with his hands, and forgot he had a gun in one of them. That was the first and (so far) last time I've ever had a loaded gun pointed at my head. Not a fun experience.

That was my first time holding a gun too. But I somehow managed to never point the thing at anything that had a heartbeat :)

Re:Why?

[sesshomaru]

My parents gave me Legos and Toy Guns.

You haven't lived until you've launched a lego structure from a System 7 gun's catapult!

(Ah! The System 7, 7 guns in one!!!)

Re:Why?

[Moofie]

Good thing I don't need to have an excuse, huh?

Re:Why?

[NickofTime]

Yeah, I had more friends being robbed at 7-11 with hockey sticks...

Re:Why?

[Moofie]

"we can have that so long as the sex education course is equally funded and has an equivalently varied curriculum"

Deal. Now who do we vote for?

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

Actually most of the gun culture in America is exactly as yours was growing up. Sport shooting and hunting is far more common than any of the more mouthy types who want to prove how "manly" they are by carrying guns.

Re:Why?

[DisKurzion]

Gonna give up some karma for this one...

Ever wondered why educated people are far less likely to have a gun in the house? Because you're a bunch of cowards who watch the news and hear the continual propaganda that "OMG GUNS KILL MILLIONS WEEKLY!!111."

Truly educated people would realize that the problem isn't guns, it is crime. The two are not co-related, as the UK is learning the hard way.

UK bans guns, crime goes up.
The problem in the US is gang violence. Eliminate that (ending drug prohibition would help), and you'll see a drastic drop in crime, not just "gun violence."

http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/uk-gun-ban/

Re:Why?

[JCSoRocks]

Seriously. If I were in Texas and I saw some jackass walking through a courtyard shooting people and I was in a classroom with an open window... it'd be all of a few seconds before he was lying on the cement regretting his decision to be such a tool.

Re:Why?

[CastrTroy]

The difference is that a 13 year old, 150 years ago, was prepared to be a parent. Why couldn't they be now? I'm not advocating that it's a good idea, but at least by that age, they should know how to cook, and keep up a house, as well as look after kids. When I went to university, there was a lot of people there who had never done laundry, never cooked, never washed dishes, and didn't know how to look after themselves. Cars are dangerous also, we shouldn't put our six year olds behind the wheel of a full size car, but I see no problem in letting them drive something they can more safely control, like go karts, and those little electric vehicles. The worst drivers are the 16 year olds who never drove any kind of vehicle before they got their learner's permit.

Re:Why?

[gabrielex]

Just let me say I perfectly agree with you. At least there's some rational person around here. Well said man!

Re:Why?

[squiggleslash]

He probably means this type of bazooka: "Hand over the cash, or I'll pop this bubble-gum and you'll get gum and saliva all over you."

It's a very Canadian problem.

Re:Why?

[kabocox]

We're banning nerf guns now? Why?

It's a college campus not the entire freaking community where the college campus is. They could hold their nerf event some where else in the community.

I could come up with a short list of 3 easy reasons that they were banned.

1 The college didn't want to be sued by some one that was not part of the event that got hit with a nerf toy.
2 The wrong college faculty/staff member got hit at a previous event.
3 They could have been worried that it would annoy any one (students, staff, or faculty) that weren't part of the event but had to pass through nerf fire to get where they were going.

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

i feel compelled to point out my own contradictions in logic, I used Charles Whitman as a flippant remark in the convo of melee and projectile accuracy. Charles Whitman committed his crimes in texas, and as i recall the student body did nothing to stop him, he was on a water tower taking people out at several hundred yards, that probably did not help matters as it were. there is a good bit of irony somewheres in there i think.

Re:Why?

[kabocox]

We're talking about groups of consenting adults having a little bit of fun and blowing off some steam, and even if it is a little odd, it's the sort of thing university students do, and given earlier posts in this article, it's probably one of the safer activities one can do on campus.

It's actually better than the alternative which is them drinking or having sex where you can't see them. The college/university could get a bad image from that sort of thing. No one cares about D&D or role playing groups. They do care about something that might be annoying like smokers or nerf fire. Nerf won't kill you, but you try studying and then have some one hit you or just come close to you with any nerf weapon and see how much studying that you get done.

Re:Why?

[Just Some Guy]

<aol>me too</aol>

I grew up in a house with guns. There were two inviolate rules:

1. You could shoot them whenever you wanted to, as long as Dad was around.
2. Deviate from rule #1 and face a fate much worse than anything a gun could deliver.

When I was older, I had a pellet gun that I could use unsupervised. I was a teenager before I could use the rifles or shotgun without Dad being right there next to me, though.

As a consequence, I had no curiosity whatsoever about guns. They were just... there. No big deal. A gun. Yawn. It honestly never occurred to me to sneak them out because there was no need to.

Re:Why?

[esocid]

The difference was a societal issue. 150 years ago women didn't really have opportunities, not to mention many people were subsistence farmers and education was for the wealthy. You pretty much had to learn how to survive on your own by the age of 10. Technology and education has reduced the need for that.
I do have to agree with you that many people have no clue how to clean up after themselves or cook and clean. I saw the same thing when I was in college, but I learned how to do all of that stuff while still in middle/high school. Some people's parents just didn't teach them responsibility. That may be the key to all of this, being responsible. But I think I made my point about the comparison of guns and cars. Why let kids handle real guns instead of letting them ease into it with toys, pellet guns, and bb guns before just letting them handle a pistol. It will let them gain confidence and awareness of its capabilities, and also has room for "safer" accidents that they can avoid if they do use a real gun.
I'll also agree with you about 16 year olds who have never driven anything before, but I still manage to see grown people who somehow have no idea how to drive a car.

Re:Why?

[jtev]

Those people who were playing Humans and Zombies wore a distincive orange bandanna to mark them as fair targets, and reduce the number of bystanders accosted. Yes, LARPers can be annoying, but it sounded like the students were being pretty reasonable in TFA.

Re:Why?

[Rostin]

It is correct that Charles Whitman shot people in Texas.

However:

1) He didn't shoot from a water tower. It was from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin administration building.
2) Many students and professors did fight back by firing up at him with hunting rifles.

Happily, your previous point about concealed carry laws is perhaps correct. According to Wikipedia:

"Ramiro Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."

Re:Why?

[Chatsubo]

"The safest thing a gun-carrying father of a 6 year old can do is thus to make it absolutely sure said gun isn't something new and strange."

Amen. As kids we got sat down and explained exactly what the two 9mm pistols in the house were, what it did, how to handle ammo, how to load it, how to check that the chamber IS empty, and how not to. They were hardly ever locked up, and I could easily get to one were my parents not home. Much like any child. (Kids know how locks work and where the keys are anyway). But it didn't intrigue me, because now I knew exactly what it was, I'd held it, unlocked it, etc. So, no more mystery, it was just a pistol, big deal.

Much like how I was taught to deal with alcohol. It was never "kept" from me and my brother, and we were allowed to drink small amounts of alcohol early on and more as we got older. When university hit, we weren't out binging, because it had been discovered, been done, nothing new to see here, move along..... From that perspective, students who had finally "slipped the bonds" and were out partying hard, looked pretty silly.

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

Thank You, I feel quite vindicated.

I would like to make then the statement that strict gun control laws allow situations like Virgina Tech to happen with greater ease than would otherwise be possible. there now i shall be modded into hell.

My Apologies to Rostin for using his fact finding to make an argument for the 2nd Amendment advocating individual rights being a Good Thing(TM) (which I advocate, call me crazy)

Re:Why?

[tikal2k]

The ban isn't because the Nerf guns look like fluorescent SuperSoakers, it's because some of them are fairly accurate replicas of actual guns.

Think of the following conditions:
1. You're in a university classroom
2. Somebody walks in brandishing what looks like a small firearm
3. You have milliseconds to react
4. ???
5. VTEC JUST KICKED IN, YO

For people not directly involved in the game, this scenario will, at best, be an unpleasant distraction from academics.

Re:Why?

[rthille]

Hey, don't laugh about the swords...recently in our small (~8k) town, someone was arrested for attacking his _friend_ in the local Burger King.

But then I live in Sebastopol, home of the wifi haters :-)

Re:Why?

[speaktruth]

While I certainly agree that familiarizing guns with children is the answer, I actually disagree with the possession or use of TOY guns. In my house growing up my friends always thought it was weird that my parents never let me have toy guns (even if given as a present), until they found out that I was allowed to have ad use real ones. My parents believed what I subscribe to and to what you are alluding: that knowledge of real guns and their effects and consequences is the key to safety and using toy guns diminishes the reality of those consequences. So, don't buy your kids toy guns, and do let them use, and eventually buy for them, real guns that they will respect.

Re:Why?

[Rostin]

No apologies are necessary. I agree 100%. :)

Re:Why?

[modecx]

No, his issues are that he's got a mother hen for, well, a mother--one who has systematically emasculated both his father and himself. The difference, of course, is that a chicken at least realizes that at some point her offspring will need to be independent. The only reason I commented on this is that I see it as a problem that is becoming endemic to America, and I see it being spearheaded by new-wave Christian fundamentalism. But that's besides the point.

It used to be that graduating high school or going to college was a sort of rite of passage--but now with the miracle of modern technology, the umbilical cord can extend across the country or across whole continents. Of course, I won't argue the idea this phenomenon is something new, but I will argue that it's becoming far easier and far more prevalent for parents to dominate their children's lives well into adulthood.

And let's face it: guns are (much to chagrin of many people) part of the modern American culture, as are automobiles, STDs and a myriad of other potentially deadly things--and it's probably not going to change any time soon. You'll teach your children how to walk across the street safely, drive a car safely, and you'll have the public schools teach them how to avoid getting STDs because you're too embarrassed to do it yourself; but you won't at least teach your child how to be safe when they come across a firearm? Here's the fact, jack: guns are the new AIDS, and in no small part because some people have come to the false conclusion that it's better to stick their heads in the sand than it is to face and confront the issue. Parents who teach only fear strike a grave injustice against their children.

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

I live in the United States. I live perfectly without guns because I have a good education, a good job, and I was given opportunities and made decisions that allow me to live without guns. My brother, on the other hand, still hunts for food because he dropped out of high school and never really got an education and works very hard for very little money. Sure, he can afford food, but it's not as good as the food he gets hunting, and doesn't last as long (a very small 60 pound dressed dear can feed a family for a long time on the cost of 1 bullet compared to buying meat every week) and if he buys his food he can't buy other things, like new shoes for his children or books to help them get an education that allows them a better life than he's providing for them now.

It's not all about "you have enough money for food if you have enough money for bullets", it's about making choices on how to spend your money. He reloads his bullets (actually usually shotgun shells) so the cost is almost zero compared to what he gains from being able to hunt for his food. Look at your grocery bill sometime and figure out how much you spend on meat every month. My brother can feed his family meat every day for 6 months for about 15 cents in bullets and another $50 in his gas and time spent hunting with his sons. I'm guessing you can't do that. Spending his money on things other than meat also allows his family to get a more balanced diet of meat and vegetables and not eat "popcorn for dinner" like he had to do for several years so his children could eat real food.

Yes, guns are always dangerous; that was the point of my post. Pretending they're not dangerous or "nonexistent" is far more dangerous to children than teaching them about the real dangers. Just because we don't all need them, however doesn't mean they're not needed, no matter how much you yell about it.

Re:Why?

[gabrielex]

I'm aware of the price of meat, so I can't afford it everyday either, maybe 1-3 times a week. I see we have some thoughts in common, even though I don't think u need to actually give kids a gun and let them handle it to teach em. Do you need to give an atomic bomb to people to teach em about its risk? I think that since sex is banished from TV, but violence, guns deaths and gore aren't , they can perfectly learn from there how much a gun is dangerous (with adult supervision) without actually ever getting in contact with it or even worse shooting. If you don't feel the need of teaching about sex to 5 y.o. kids, why do you feel the need of teaching em about guns so early? And for the guy living in Brasil: it's quite clear police doesn't do its work as it should if all that happens.

Re:Why?

[e4g4]

The problem in the US is gang violence. Eliminate that (ending drug prohibition would help), and you'll see a drastic drop in crime, not just "gun violence." Very true - what so many people fail to realize is that gangs are economic entities more than anything else. Take away their primary source of income (drugs, sold for a tremendous profit due to the artificially inflated price) and the gangs will crumble, because they will no longer be able to support their members.

Re:Why?

[psychodelicacy]

Okay, but times change. For example, it's only relatively recently that societies such as the UK have raised the age of consent to sixteen. Historically, it has ranged anywhere from the age of seven onwards. Just because tradition has always treated children in a particular way, that doesn't mean that we should continue to believe it's right. Historically, there have been times when people needed to learn to hunt, or defend their families, at very young ages. That isn't the case any more - it may be cheaper to hunt, but it isn't necessary to avoid starvation in countries like the UK or US. Growing vegetables and pulses is a perfectly acceptable alternative, for example, even if you're arguing against the costs of buying food.

Guns, in the end, have the primary purpose of killing things. While teaching children how to kill things may have been practically necessary two hundred years ago, it is not any longer and, in my view, it should be banned.

I'm interested that my original comment was modded as a troll. I wasn't meaning to troll, just expressing an opinion that I hold very deeply and that is shared by an awful lot of people.

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

Yes, times change. That doesn't change the fact that being unnecessary and wrong/obscene aren't the same thing at all. You have an opinion, that was worded as a troll, whether you intended to word it that way or not. Growing vegetables is fine, and a great supplement to other options, but unless you're a vegetarian, with a lot of land, you won't feed your family on that.

As for necessary, for some people, it is necessary. See my post above about my brother who does need to hunt to supplement his food supplies. As a result, his children have learned to hunt as well. Is it necessary for them? Right now yes, hopefully not in the long run, when they're forced to fend for themselves. There are plenty of people in the US and I'd dare say in the UK who are poor enough to need to hunt for food or risk not eating. And, as I said in another post, it isn't always about hunt or don't eat, but sometimes it's "buy food or buy something else" and when you have the opportunity to hunt for your food, you can afford a better standard of living by doing so and using what little money you have to buy other necessities.

Your view, while wonderfully progressive, is unfortunately not realistic because it overlooks the fact that we're not all equally capable financially. Yes, a lot of people hold your opinion, but I'd be willing to bet most of those people have never gone hungry in their lives or had to make the choice between food and something else.

I am actually a proponent of limited gun control. IE no automatic weapons for citizens. Much more limited hand gun availability (they do have uses in some places) with licenses for anyone who owns them. Mandatory yearly training for anyone holding a license, that sort of thing. Owning a gun, in my opinion should be a right, but it should also be treated as a privelege/responsibility that you have to maintain through active participation. Of course, controlling that kind of thing is logistically very difficult if not impossible.

Guns have uses, and just because they are dangerous, we shouldn't overlook their uses. Are they necessary? Less now than ever before, but they are still necessary for some people.

Re:Why?

[photomonkey]

I am very glad to hear that there still exist parents like you.

Thank you.

Re:Why?

[SoulGrind]

No, but you can rip someone's heart out with a tea-cup. Just ask Riddick...

Re:Why?

[westlake]

What's a weapon? You can splatter someone's brains everywhere in seconds with almost anything.

The assault weapon can wound or kill an entire class in little more than a single burst. It's strange that a geek can't make distinctions that are perfectly obvious to anyone else.

Re:Why?

[westlake]

Gun control only keeps guns out of the "right hands". "Wrong hands" will find access to guns, regardless of the law.

You hear this argument repeated endlessly in the states.

Never in countries where firearms are tightly regulated and gun deaths almost unknown.

Re:Why?

[Tetrad_of_doom]

What's a weapon? You can splatter someone's brains everywhere in seconds with almost anything.

Almost anything except a Nerf gun.

Re:Why?

[WNight]

Yes, because when being held at gunpoint by someone standing 5m away it's trivial to reach under your coat and pull your doll, putting the fear of plastic into him. Barbies work best - those little feet are sharp!

Tazers though. If you're willing to shoot someone you should be willing to zap them, and it probably won't kill them instead of probably will...

Re:Why?

[WNight]

That would be why you teach them...

If you start at that age they'll understand. If you wait till they'd understand better you'll just keep waiting. After all, at 9-10 they're in school and that'd be a bad time to let them play with guns. And teenagers are notoriously unstable. People in their early 20s are often on drinking binges because of parents who didn't let them drink, so they're not a good risk. If you wait for them to be wise before educating them you'll have to wait a while.

Re:Why?

[tylernt]

Gun owners are far more likely to die from a gun shot than none gun owners. That is a statistical fact.

I'll call you on that. Cite please. Please restrict your numbers to law-abiding citizens defending themselves from violent attackers (i.e., exclude the druggies and gang bangers shooting each other) and I think you'll find that your intended argument doesn't hold water.

Re:Why?

[SoulGrind]

PParent hides gun in the house and tells 6 year old child nothing about it. 6 year old shoots somebody. Parent is not charged. Not sure which state you reside in, but here in California, "hiding" the weapon doesn't win you any brownie points. I have a feeling other states have similar laws regarding firearms and minors.

In California, you need to take preventative measures by keeping the weapon(s) and ammunition unloaded, locked, and stored out of reach of minors, at all times.

If a minor harms/kills someone with use of an improperly stored firearm, in most cases it is the responsibility of the firearm owner to be held accountable.

Under the Children's Firearm Accident Prevention Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, may be fined or sent to prison. (Penal Code 12035, 12036, 12071.) - California Firearms Laws 2007 - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

For California residents, you can find additional information in the book entitled, "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail: What You Need to Know About the Law If You Own a Gun or Are Thinking of Buying One : California Edition 2007 (Paperback), Publisher: Gun Law Pr; Revised edition (November 15, 2006), ISBN-10: 0964286440, ISBN-13: 978-0964286443", or by contacting your local/state authorities, or reference http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/ for further laws governing the legal/illegal use of firearms in the state of California.

If you are outside of California, please consult both your State and Local authorities (yes, Local and State can differ just as State and Federal can differ, just look at the case of San Francisco vs State of California from a few years back regarding hand gun ownership) for the definitive legal terms regarding firearm ownership in the state for which you reside.

Also note: In most states, "Case Law" supersedes pre-existing laws. It is YOUR responsibility as a firearms owner to investigate such laws as the state does not send out memos to inform you of recent changes to firearm laws.

Happy gun toting!

Re:Why?

[WNight]

At my house we had a couple hunting rifles (bear territory, and just how it is in the country) and I was far more responsible around guns than most kids my age, many of whom were city kids without the same background.

Parents without guns may not have their children find their guns, but if their children find *any* guns they'll have a problem. Our guns weren't locked (that wouldn't be useful if the was a bear in the apple trees) but because of training I would have been safe if I found a gun at someone else's house too.

Guns weren't fun, they were work like any other piece of farm equipment, many of which were just as deadly if used incorrectly. My friends who didn't get that background aren't half as safe. (They don't tie their hair back when near machinery, watch for loose clothing, stand out of the likely unsafe areas, put a brace under a car instead of just a jack, etc.) Similarly I grew up helping my dad blast, through solid rock for our well, and giant stumps to save our backs. I helped plan, dig/drill holes, and clean up after the blast. As such, I've never had a firecracker go off anywhere near me. Friends, again without this background, hold and throw fireworks as if fast-burning fuses never happen...

I don't own a gun, nor dynamite, but knowing how to use both has probably kept me from risking life and limb on other things. (Power tools, welding/cutting tools, nail guns, and construction machinery.)

Re:Why?

[aplusjimages]

This is assuming you were a crack shot and that you checked your background for innocent people first. Also, just because you have a gun it doesn't mean you are bullet proof. As easily as you could shoot the killer, the killer can shoot you.

Re:Why?

[Beefaroni]

had guns within reach my whole life - unlocked, never shot anyone. why? i was brought up correctly and knew their power at and early age of 5. how? i started shooting at the age of 5 under parental supervision, and received my first rifle at age 8. a gun's presence i believe saved my life when a couple crack heads, with knives, broke into my apartment. had i been defenseless who knows what would have happened. the police only took 40 minutes to get there and informed me i lived in a bad part of Toledo, Ohio. i said, "i know this is a shitty neighborhood, that is have i have a gun".

Re:Why?

[WNight]

One, sex ed should be introduced young. Kids won't be interested in all the squicky pink stuff, but they should know that babies grow in mothers and that fathers are essential in this biologically. Also that it feels good (the answer for why someone would do something icky like touch a girl).

But sex mostly just leads to more kids, dangerous tools lead to less kids.

As such, your kids need gun, cleaning products, knife, hot-water, stove, and other such training. They should definitely be taught safety around tools. Even if they don't shoot they may be around a policeman during a robbery and need to know when to hit the ground.

As for TV, if you think it's teaching your kids, you're right - to be like you.

Re:Why?

[fm6]

What are we now, "Land of the fee, home of the scared?" Pretty much. When something nasty happens, people insist that the authorities Do Something. And of course, what they do is designed more to shut people up than to actually fix things. So we get blanket "zero tolerance" rules. Thus all those school shootings produced bans, not just on guns, but on gun-like objects.

Re:Why?

[LWATCDR]

"http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html"
I am afraid that the it really does hold water.
If you take every accident, suicide, and domestic shooting and then compare them to the number of times that having a gun has prevented a death and or injury you will find that gun ownership is more likely to cause a death or injury than not owning a gun.
Buy restricting it to just law-abiding citizens well you are stacking the deck big time. How about restricting it to people that legally own guns.

As I said those are statistics so yes it is not mandatory that they apply to the individual.

Re:Why?

[brkello]

It isn't so cut and dry as you try to make it out. We don't live in a world where everyone is educated on the proper use of guns. Someone in your family is more likely to be shot than anyone else when you own a gun. I am not saying take away the right to own a gun. I am just saying be realistic about it and understand that some gun laws are good. You can be highly educated and still not like guns. Calling people names is rather pathetic and doesn't help sway anyone to your side.

Re:Why?

[Reziac]

I grew up in the era where every kid had REALISTIC toy guns, and every kid regularly and gleefully "killed" his friends whilst playing Cowboys and Indians. But we also knew that REAL guns were different from toys, even without overt education, because *adults took them seriously* -- an attitude not of fear like today, but as one would regard a tool meant for a specific job. Maybe it was because back then, most adult males still hunted, and an understanding does rub off on the kid that if you shoot something with a REAL gun, it is irrecoverably DEAD.

To a normal kid, who's been allowed to "just be a kid" and fall out of a few trees, rather than being coddled away from all possible threat, the distinction between TOOL and TOY is self-evident. No need to lock the TOOLS up (thus making them artificially attractive to kids), or prevent kids from examining them (as kids will no matter what -- hell, our guns were in an open cabinet, and even tho we'd sometimes look at them, we never shot each other!! We knew they weren't toys.)

Responsibility development, as you note, has indeed been "retarded" by the nanny mentality. And it's going to get worse, as a generation so afflicted make things "even safer" for their own kids.

Re:Why?

[STrinity]

Ever wondered why educated people are far less likely to have a gun in the house?

Can you link to a study showing this to be the case, or are you engaged in proctonumerology?

Re:Why?

[Reziac]

Maybe kids wouldn't believe those things if adults didn't try to "soften the blow" by telling kids all sorts of BS, like "grandma is in heaven now" (even if that's your religious belief, it's not how a little kid will interpret that) or "Spot will be okay, he just can't live with us anymore" after Spot gets killed in the road.

While the motivation of reducing kids' anxiety is good on the surface, encouraging fantasy beliefs actually works the other way around. Kids can handle just about anything if you're HONEST with them. But if you try to hide stuff, kids KNOW something is amiss, and worry that much more about it.

I've also noticed that most little kids are perfectly aware of what's real and what's fantasy -- UNTIL an adult tells them that something the kid knows is fantasy is "in fact real", and confuses the issue -- from the kid's POV it goes like this: "I thought adults knew what they're talking about?? why do they believe Santa is real? *I* knew Santa was pretend; now I'm not so sure."

Re:Why?

[bladesjester]

This is assuming you were a crack shot and that you checked your background for innocent people first.

In this case, more people on the ground, and closer to the shooter, would be likely to be armed as well, so the chances are that *someone* could get off a clean shot.

Also, just because you have a gun it doesn't mean you are bullet proof. As easily as you could shoot the killer, the killer can shoot you.

Life is full of risks. We take them every day. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not it's a risk you're willing to take and if, to you, the reason is good enough.

A lot of sheep-like people would say "no! any danger is bad!". Someone with their head on straight would do a quick rundown of their chances of getting off a shot vs their chances of getting shot and the possibility of moving to a better position in order to get off the shot without getting shot themselves.

Re:Why?

[Reziac]

And unless you keep your kid in a glass bubble, YOUR gun, cleaning products, knife, hot-water, stove, etc. may not be the ONLY gun, cleaning products, knife, hot-water, stove, etc, that your kid encounters. What happens when a gun-ignorant kid finds a gun on the street, or when his equally gun-ignorant friend shows him the nifty "toy gun" he found in daddy's army locker?

I knew real guns from (realistic) toy guns by the time I was five years old, but I grew up with both in the house (and nothing locked up). I doubt that most kids today could tell a realistic toy from the real thing.

Re:Why?

[bark76]

Nerf guns don't kill people! People kill people.

Re:Why?

[Reziac]

"A man who defended himself is serving longer than those who were robbing him. An innocent man who has done nothing wrong has been imprisoned. The utter ridiculousness of the anti-defense movement is realized."

Upon refitting my tinfoil hat, I'm moved to comment that when the "unintended consequences" of defending yourself are so much more negative than being a crime victim that no one DARES defend themselves, the people have been reduced to extremely herdable sheep, ever so much easier for the gov't to deal with, as the people have been well-taught to never, ever resist no matter what.

Re:Why?

[Anguirel]

To be fair, a lot of adults have the same perception of death with a much longer time frame involved, and a very old book as the basis. Maybe if children weren't brought up with magical tales about death leading to a better place or resurrection being told to them, they wouldn't believe in them.

Re:Why?

[WNight]

Exactly.

And with the way everyone on TV waves a gun around, I can see why people aren't properly wary of them. The good guys get shot and survive, the bad guys fall over with a few little red dots on them, and everyone is happy.

A description of someone finding their friend's parent's gun

Re:Why?

[bladesjester]

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous arguments I've heard. Letting your 6 year old handle a gun? That's only going to teach him that it's ok to handle a gun whenever he wants to.

I'm going to step in here on a semi-related note to give you an example of why you're off base.

I started training martially at about the age of 6. It wasn't long after that that I was using various types of weapons besides hands and feet. Heck, I started having my *own* weapons by the time I was 10.

Letting a kid handle weaponry and know how to use it responsibly does *not* teach him or her that it's okay to run around madly with one. Danger more often comes with fear and unfamiliarity in that sort of thing than it does with knowledge.

Re:Why?

[Reziac]

And even more laughable, TV bullets get stopped by cardboard boxes and sheetrock. Right.....

Side note: I have a silly habit of counting shots on TV shows. Most run one over reality, but I guess that's better than the infinite repeater of yesteryear!

Yep, I saw that post about "finding a gun", which partly inspired my reply above.

Montana public schools in the 1960s/70s provided some basic gun-safety classes (actually, they were required). Wonder if any schools do that now?

Re:Why?

[Beefaroni]

Ever wondered why educated people are far less likely to have a gun in the house? i have a BFA and several firearms... there goes your theory.

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

I've taught my kids about sex since they were first able to ask any questions about it. For my daughter she asked me what and orgasm was when she was 6 or 7 years old. She got a valid answer, not a lie. When she was 8 she asked if one of my friends was gay, and knew that several of the women I had dated after getting divorced were bisexual. Sex doesn't have to be some sort of scary thing and I'd much prefer to see sex on tv than violence, to be honest.

Kids need to be treated with the respect they deserve, and taught to think for themselves, as early as possible, I think. Otherwise you have a society of mindless sheep. If they have the thought capacity to ask a question, they have the capacity to understand a real answer. It doesn't have to be a complete, in depth, answer, but it has to be a real answer.

I don't think it's necessary to give a child a gun to teach them about guns, and my children have never shot a gun, but have been around them and understand the implications they have for potential harm.

TV teaches kids the exact opposite of the truth about guns, at least as seen here in the USA. People routinely get shot on tv and act like it doesn't hurt much, or shot at, and things like drywall, car doors, and shipping crates stop the bullets. A 22 caliber rifle round can go through six 2x4 planks before it finally stops. A 1/2" piece of drywall simply won't stop them, and certainly not higher caliber bullets, which are more common for handguns.

I would sooner leave my children alone in central park than expect them to learn gun safety (or anything else) from television.

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

in the crazy above situation where some guy goes nuts and starts murdering everyone left and right i think that worrying about being shot is kind of redundant, he's going to try to kill you anyways. granted this is an edge case but still a very valid one. any normal criminal is going to think second thoughts about going about murdering everyone when anyone possibly has a gun on them, it equalizes the situation. guns take a lot less expertise than say a black belt in karate or akido so physical equalizers like that are much rarer. removing weapons from people doesn't make them safe, it makes them unarmed and easier targets.

Re:Why?

[psychodelicacy]

I don't believe that "obscene" was too strong a word. "Wrong" certainly isn't. Guns are machines designed only for the purpose of causing death. I don't believe you can justify wielding one at all, let alone putting one in the hands of a child.

From the FAQ: A troll "is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." I was being totally serious, and therefore what I said wasn't a troll. It may have been flamebait - "comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage". Though I would argue not - mine is a commonly-held view, especially in the UK where I live, and although I inadvertently insulted some people, that was in no way my intent and I had no idea it would be taken in that way.

Modding a comment as "troll" and "flamebait" are not alternative ways of saying "I really don't like your views".

Re:Why?

[JCSoRocks]

You don't have to be an amazing shot to get someone at about 150-200 feet in a courtyard - as I was theorizing. I've regularly hit targets smaller than a human head at that distance - with iron sights. Hitting someone in the torso would be cake.

I made a point of saying I was in a windowed classroom - in this particular case it does two things for me - (1) makes me a considerably less likely target. (2) If I'm shooting at a downward angle the only thing I'll hit if I miss is the ground (yes, bullets can ricochet, but I don't think there are going to be people standing around the guy waiting to get shot).

Re:Why?

[tknd]

While you are 100% correct, that is not the entire picture because you cannot determine which hands are "wrong" until after they have committed a crime. By outlawing all guns, you force all criminals to commit at least one crime before committing the crime they intended to commit (unless the crime was simply to own a gun).

So for example if a college kid is deemed to be an honest and lawful citizen until one day he just "snaps." He can use his current perceived "law abiding citizen" status to legally purchase a gun and then use the legally purchased gun to commit murder. If guns were illegal, he would first have to commit the crime of acquiring a gun before he could accomplish his true goal.

Obviously this would not prevent all crimes associated with guns, but it would make it harder for people to commit the crimes best performed through the use of a gun.

Re:Why?

[clary]

Guns are machines designed only for the purpose of causing death.

Let's ignore the fact that different guns are designed for different purposes. Let's ignore the second fact that most non-hunting guns never cause anything to die. All I have to say is so what? There are times when it is appropriate to cause death.

Do you eat meat? If so, then surely you are not so hypocritical as to say it is wrong for someone to kill his own food?

Do you believe that it is wrong to use deadly force to protect one's own life and the life of innocents around him? If not, then why would you say one is not justified in wielding an effective tool for that purpose? A firearm is often the most effective tool for defense. (If you do believe it is wrong to use deadly force to preserve innocent life, then sadly we have no common ground for discussion.)

I don't believe you can justify wielding one at all, let alone putting one in the hands of a child.

I think I just did. And I thank God I am my kids dad and you are not.

Re:Why?

[Jardine]

Put away your gut reactions and look at the statistics. Boats are more likely to kill your kids than handguns are. Swimming pools are MUCH more likely to kill a neighborhood kid than a loaded, unlocked handgun in the same house. You wouldn't have a pool in the backyard and not teach your kids how to swim, would you?

Someone's been reading Freakonomics.

Re:Why?

[sjames]

Never in countries where firearms are tightly regulated and gun deaths almost unknown.

I suspect in the U.S. that if guns were strictly banned, the rate of gun deaths would go down. And knife, broken bottle, and baseball bat deaths would go up.

Re:Why?

[TychoCelchuuu]

Clearly if you did not shoot anyone, nobody will ever shoot anyone, because all children are the same.

Re:Why?

[psychodelicacy]

No, I don't believe in killing animals for food. We can easily do without it. But I accept that this is an extreme view.

Do I believe it's wrong to use deadly force to protect a life? Yes, I do. I would do anything I could to stop someone from causing serious harm to me or those around me, and if in that process I killed them, I might not mourn much. But I hope I would never, ever do something with the intent to inflict deadly force. Owning a gun, to my mind, symbolises a willingness to kill, which is something that really bothers me.

There's a big cultural divide between the UK and the US on this, I think, and perhaps I've been too hard to judge people who are pro-gun ownership in the US. Could you perhaps judge me less harshly if you understand that I live in a culture where I'm incredibly unlikely ever to need to defend myself against a gun, where hunting is generally a pastime of the rich, and where one's stereotype of a gun-owner is of a violent and vicious criminal?

I'm glad I'm not your kids' dad too, since it would involve a major operation and I'm pretty happy as a woman ;)

Re:Why?

[Cassander]

Can you link to a study showing this to be the case, or are you engaged in proctonumerology?

Thank you. I now have a new favorite word.

Re:Why?

[psychodelicacy]

Coming from the UK, I've grown up in the knowledge that pretty much the only people who have guns are a) farmers and landowners; b) the police and army; c) violent criminals. It's incredibly difficult to get a firearms licence. Like most adults, children (with perhaps the very rare exception of young people on farms, who need to be taught not to play with their parents' work guns) will only encounter guns in illegal situations. The idea of the average person owning a gun legally is completely foreign to me, so I guess I react to guns as though they're illegal and criminal objects, rather than tools which are only good or bad depending on who's handling them. Perhaps I am just prejudiced, and we would be safer with guns in our homes. But to me they are very frightening. So, the fact that I'm a pacifist and believe in non-violence, linked with my upbringing in a country with tight gun control, leads me to have what probably seem in the US like extreme views on this subject. The fact that it's part of my cultural context also means that I forget sometimes that my views could be offensive to a large number of people in the US - in the UK, my views would only apply personally to a small minority, most of whom only use guns for work or for criminal activity!

That was a long-winded way to try to explain my different perspective, but also to say I'm sorry if I was needlessly offensive, and I hope you can now understand where I was coming from. I've learned something from your posts. I also hope it isn't patronising for me to say that it sounds like you're great with your kids!

Re:Why?

[soarkalm]

Full Auto assault weapons are already banned (sorta). Everything else is single fire. E.g. a 'burst' is one round. Even if you lined 'em all up, you'd get only one or two with one bullet?

Re:Why?

[r_jensen11]

Gun control only keeps guns out of the "right hands". "Wrong hands" will find access to guns, regardless of the law. Gun control helps keep guns out of the hands of people who are incompitent when it somes to handling guns. I'm not for banning all guns; I have great respect for people who go hunting, whether they use rifles or bow & arrow. I've never understood the idea of hunting with a pistol, but if somebody can intelligently explain the purpose of hunting with a pistol vs a rifle or a shotgun, then I'm sure I'll respect that too.

What I don't respect are people who live in cities their whole lives and buy a gun by claiming to protect themselves. Out in the country? Yes; if an animal charges you, you may need a gun. In the city? I think the odds of person A being "mentally unstable" (to be P.C. Or we could just say "fucked up") enough to go in to a store and fire a gun at someone because they did nothing more than brush shoulders without apologizing, than it is for a person to:

A) Have the pistol they purchased legally on them
B) Be aware of a specific threat
C) Be able to withdraw said legal gun safely
D) Neutralize the threat without damage to anyone/anything around the threat

I say this because if the person is aware of the specific threat, odds are that they're probably being mugged or held up in some other fashion. In this event, the person who is the assaulter would be able to see the victim reach for a weapon and neutralize the victim before being attacked.

I also say the above because a very large number of victims of gun violence are innocent bystanders. Them packing a gun is not going to make them any safer, either.

Re:Why?

[aunticrist]

Right. Just like all of those kids out there that are shooting up their neighborhoods because they are in the home with a gun owner. Its a veritable war zone out there. Quick. Hide.

Re:Why?

[Wolvey]

...regretting his decision to be such a tool.

Sorry but overuse of the word "tool" is a pet peeve of mine. A tool does not decide to be one. From dictionary.com:

"a person who is controlled by others and is used to perform unpleasant or dishonest tasks for someone else"

In what way is a sniper a tool? For whom is he a tool?

Re:Why?

[CastrTroy]

So, somebody sees you take out your gun and shoot the wacko, but wasn't aware the the other guy is the wacko, and decides to shoot you. Then somebody shoots him, and then that somebody is also shot. Probably wouldn't go that far, but one you pull out your gun and start shooting, it's easy for others to mistake you for the gun toting wacko. It's also easy for you to miss, and the the bullet hit some innocent bystander. Maybe you are a good shot, but I wouldn't want to be the guy standing on the other side of the shooter.

Re:Why?

[lostokie]

Washington DC is a good example of why this "first crime" isn't really much of a barrier. Guns are completely illegal there, yet gun murders/crimes abound at a much higher rate than the rest of the country. Even the UK, with much stricter gun laws recently passed, is having an increase in gun crime incidents.

Re:Why?

[Mr. Slippery]

Someone in your family is more likely to be shot than anyone else when you own a gun.

Actually, according to the DOJ, "Homicides committed by friends/acquaintances and strangers are more likely to involve guns than those committed by initmates or family members." So if you get shot to death, it's less likely to be by a family member than by some other sort of acquaintance.

And you're much more likely to use a firearm defensively (which will probably not mean killing someone, just making the threat to do so tends to make people leave you alone) than to shoot a family member. There are roughly 2,000 homicides by family members per year; estimates of defensive firearms use range from around one hundred thousand into the millions, depending on who does the surveys.

Re:Why?

[lostokie]

People defend themselves with firearms all the time in the US. Many states have laws that allow home owners to shoot intruders if there is *any* fear for their or a family members safety. The US Supreme Court is currently seeing a case that goes to the heart of the 2nd Amendment (The Right to Bear Arms). Their arguments so far seem to indicate they take seriously that the primary reason for citizens to own firearms is to protect against a tyrannical government. I think it ludicrous that any industrialized nation would need to physically overthrow their government, but I'd hate to needlessly give up rights today that my great great grandchildren might need.

Either way, keep in mind the US is an extremely violent place compared to other industrialized nations. The US has more murders with any other weapon (knives, blunt instruments, fists, etc), than the UK has total.

Re:Why?

[Mr. Slippery]

Ever wondered why educated people are far less likely to have a gun in the house?

Not accurate.

High school dropouts are the least likely to own guns. Next least likely are people with post-graduate degrees, then college grads; high school graduates are the most likely to own a gun.

Look at the column about handguns, and note that high school graduates, college grads, and those with advanced degrees are all just about equally likely to own handguns - in fact, advanced degree holders are slightly more likely to own a handgun that people with only a bachelor's degree.

The difference in total gun ownership must be in long guns. And I'm betting college graduates are less likely to get their jollies by hunting.

Re:Why?

[RonTheHurler]

"that knowledge of real guns and their effects and consequences is the key to safety and using toy guns diminishes the reality of those consequences"

Yeah, I hear this a lot, being that I sell toy guns and such.

But it sounds a lot like the psychologists of the 60's who warned that Sesame Street would confuse and disturb children because they wouldn't be able to distinguish fantasy (big bird, kermiit) from reality (the human actors). Guess what, the children were smarter than that.

Should I not allow my kids to have toy riding cars, in fear that they might confuse the real car for a toy and take it out for a spin, or not buy my daughter a play kitchen set in fear that she might think the real oven is a toy, and burn down the house, or not let her have dolls, for fear that her little brother might try to rip the heads off of our neighbors?

Kids know what's real, and what's make believe. The toy guns give them an outlet for role play - cops and robbers, star wars - you know, basic social skills like establishing their own rules, getting physical, conflict resolution, etc. And when they start using the toy guns for target practice all on their own, and discover the joys of action at a distance, rudimentary aerodynamics (in the case of the flying projectiles) and the magic of how gravity behaves, well, I see something happening there that just doesn't happen with "action figure" dolls and a plastic play house.

Go hang out at a paintball arena for a while. Talk to the eight year olds and see how "confused" they are about toy guns, paintball markers and real guns. More importantly, watch the amazing interactions between the kids and their parents. I see more mutual inter-generational respect there than just about anywhere.

But, after all that, it's not my intention to change anyone's attitudes or behavior. We're all different, and we all react to situations in our own way, according to our own prejudices and sensitivities. I just want the freedom to be able to raise my kids and provide an environment for them that I think helps them achieve their best potential. And the same for you too. Where our philosophies clash, I hope we can agree to stay out of each other's way rather than try to curtail anyone's freedoms. Don't buy my products - that's fine. But don't tell me we need to ban toy guns or they'll warp our kid's judgement, Or we'll have to ban TV, product packaging (cereal boxes, I'm looking at you!) hell, most toys and books too.

As for the realistic looking toy guns, I agree that as long as there are cops who'd sooner take out a kid than risk the possibility of taking a shot in his flack jacket, then realistic toy guns should be kept out of public play areas. We only use them in our backyard, and as soon as I sell out of my current inventory of realistic-looking toy guns, I plan to discontinue them and only offer the truly, unmistakably *toy* versions. Not because I fear a kid will be confused by them, but because I fear a cop - someone who is trained to use a gun and well practiced at it, might be confused.

Here's some more fun stuff - http://www.ballistictoys.com/

Re:Why?

[tylernt]

If you take every accident, suicide, and domestic shooting and then compare them to the number of times that having a gun has prevented a death and or injury

Ok, let's do that. There are an estimated 830 thousand to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. Are you saying there are more than 830 thousand gun-related murders and accidents per year? Because the CDC puts that number closer to 30 or 40 thousand. If my math is right, that makes guns at least 20 times more likely to be used to defend life from the bad guys than to take it from the good guys.

Back to your original point,

Gun owners are far more likely to die from a gun shot than none gun owners. That is a statistical fact.

Sure, criminal gun owners are more likely to go down in a gunfight. However, law-abiding gun owners are less likely. The statistics do not differentiate between the two types of gun owners, which misses an important distinction.

Re:Why?

[DiEx-15]

More like "Land of the Greed and Home of the Ignorant"

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I replied to this further down as response but I just spent two hours researching this and sifting through source data so i'm going to post this higher.

I really hate the intellectual dishonesty on both sides of this issue.

Here in Australia guns were effectivly banned a decade ago...we have the harshest gun laws in the western world.

Homicide rates are declining at exactly the same rate as they were before laws were enacted...
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/homicideRate2.png [aic.gov.au]
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/13/gr_guns_narrowweb__300x362,0.jpg [smh.com.au]

Pro and anti gun groups estimated between 2-7 million guns in the country before the ban.

~700,000 guns were handed in.

If you dont respect the law, why would you follow that particular one?

The vast vast majority of guncrime here is, and always was, suicide.

Last year alone...

# Accident 40
# Suicide 193
# Homicide 54
# Legal etc. 3

The Australian Bureau of statistics says that suicide by firearm has halved! Rejoice!

Oops suicide by hanging has now doubled...

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/95553f4ed9b60a374a2568030012e707/161eb35db8be9152ca256f6a00733990/Body/0.75F0!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif [abs.gov.au]

Oh Well, No matter! As long as a gun wasn't involved then that's not our problem.

On the other hand mass shootings have become non-existant.

One side says gun deaths have gone down, yay! Except those people are still dying...they're just hanging themselves or being bludgeoned or stabbed to death.

The other side says that it makes no difference, that gun crime will continue as criminals keep their guns. Yes, this is true. On the other hand your average mass shooter doesn't have a criminal mindset or connections, and wouldn't know where to get a gun if they wanted one.

So from our real world data...gun bans reduce mass shootings, no doubt. They have no effect on *general* homicide or suicide rates.

Then again in this country guns have never been anywhere near the top of the list of ways to kill someone. Knives and hands and feet hold that priviledge. 33% for knives, 18% for hands and 14% for guns (down a whopping 1% since the new gun laws a decade ago).

You've got more chance of being stabbed or bashed to death outside the bar than being shot, it's always been this way.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/77/rpp77.pdf [aic.gov.au]

So...
Half a billion dollars to reduce the homicide by firearm rate by 1%
BUT
No mass shootings for a decade.
BUT
Private citizens are now left merciless.
BUT
There is still probably over a million guns in the country.

Don't be fooled...by either side.

Re:Why?

[mjwx]

The safest thing a gun-carrying father of a 6 year old can do is thus to make it absolutely sure said gun isn't something new and strange

No, that's wrong. So very wrong

The safest thing a gun carrying father can do it get rid of the gun? baring that lock it up where a Child cant get it. What kind of responsible parent leaves guns lying around for children to get their hands on. In no way can a child the age of 6 does not understand the kind of danger they are in holding a firearm and in no way should be encouraged to use a firearm at that age. Children around that age are inquisitive (a good thing, they learn from this) and will play with a gun if they can get to it no matter what you tell them, this is why chemical bottles (think bleach and cleaning agents) come with safety caps. If you cant secure a firearm beyond the reach of a 6 year old you shouldn't have one (a gun or six year old child).

And don't bring that "what about the criminals argument". If you need a firearm to defend against criminals you are not in a neighbourhood where you should be raising a child. On a side note, the "only outlaws will have guns" is wrong, the only Australian criminals with guns are the organised ones, Bikies and the like the ones that wont ever bother the ordinary citizen, shootings tend to bring the law onto their more fragile operations like drug trafficking. Our gangs (mostly Asian) are forced to fight with knives and bottles reducing the number of bystanders wounded, most holdups are done with knives and in the 10 years since the introduction of restrictions crime rates have gone down. Australia has restrictions, not bans. Restrictions work, I can still own a gun so long as I keep it at the range as I don't have a place to store it in my house (law requires a safe to be bolted to a house's foundations not that I feel the need to keep firearms near me) People with a criminal record cant get firearms legally and getting them off the black market isn't easy so only the most well connected can get them and only weak weapons like .22 rifles and 9mm auto pistols. An AK is incredibly expensive to get to Australia.

Re:Why?

[painlord2k]

Place like England? Their homicide rate growth in the last 15 years (when they cracked down on legal gun owners) and the gun related homicides growth also.

Re:Why?

[aplusjimages]

Criminals will be criminals. You arm every citizen, then criminals will up the weapons they carry, they will most likely take that as a sign that we live in a hostile environment and the criminal will most likely take lives a lot easier. Carrying a gun isn't going to deter criminals otherwise gas stations wouldn't get robbed anymore.

Re:Why?

[zehaeva]

giving citizens something with which to defend themselves is better than nothing. you are right a criminal will be a criminal, somethings you just cant stop from happening. but i'm not sure what the next step in escalation is after guns, AK47s, bazookas? you can still defend your self just as well with a gun vs an AK as you could if you both had a 6 shooter.

i would like to point out that while arming everyone will not deter determined criminals neither will disarming everyone. criminals would then use just physical strength and melee weapons to commit the crimes. even then with our borders being wide open as they are all it would take is a few people trafficking in illegal guns to overwhelm the whole of the populous.

you can not keep weapons out of the hands of the 'bad' people, just as you can not stop pirates from breaking DRM. it is an exercise in futility. what you can do is educate the people, show them how to defend themselves against those who would do them harm in situations where it is unavoidable and involve the proper authorities when possible.

i do have a small anecdote about guns a gas station and texas. a good friend of mine whom was a army ranger pulled into a gas station. that same moment a man stepped out of the station holding a gun waving it around; he had just robbed said gas station. he pointed the gun at my friend and began to walk towards him, presumably with the intent to take his vehicle and possibly do him harm, he had done so to the store clerk. this being texas my friend pulled out his pistol(he kept it under his seat in his truck) and shot the man three times killing him. he had robbed other gas stations, was probably going to do so again and my friend could very well been dead. anecdotal evidence, yes it is. but one of those things that goes through my head every time we make it harder for the common man to own a gun (make it harder for the common man to use his media in the way he wants) which does nothing to limit the ability of those who would illegally own a gun (those who pirate).

there i have tied in our 2nd Amendment to piracy and DRM, are you proud of me /.?

Re:Why?

[bkr1_2k]

Thank you for a very thoughtful conversation. I think it's important that you recognize your bias and express that, because it does bring a very different edge to your comments, and I appreciate that. I never thought of your comments as offensive, so much as lacking a certain perspective, which makes sense, given your upbringing.

I'd like to say that I have never advocated gun ownership (and never will) for the sake of "home safety" because I think that's a fallacy. More people are shot with guns in their own home than any other place, I believe. I consider them a tool for safety in environments where man is the weakest link (ie truly wild, harsh, natural environs), rather than in environments where man is the most dangerous predator (ie cities)
.
Guns are frightening and they should be. I don't think guns should be treated casually but they definitely don't have to be considered criminal objects, and are, as you say tools that are only good or bad depending upon their user.

Re:Why?

[clary]

Wow...when I came sailing into this thread and felt compelled to rebut one of your posts, I expected the stereotypical pro-gun/anti-gun shoutfest (which can be kind of fun its own odd way ;-). But your response was a breath of fresh air...thanks!

Well, I won't get into the whole vegetarian debate with you, but since that is your position we'll take hunting off the table for this conversation.

On deadly force, I think we are not as far apart as you might imagine. I'll start by saying that I am not so presumptuous as to consider my moral judgment infallible. But as I see it, being willing to use deadly force is not the same as an intent to kill. I hope never to be in the position to have to use any force to defend myself or my loved ones. I take many precautions (choosing a place to live, locking my doors, etc.) to avoid that situation. If I or those around me were ever threatened and I was armed, actually discharging a gun would be my last resort. I would do it purely with the intent to stop the attack. If the attacker was harmed or killed, then that would be an unfortunate side-effect. I guess you are right, though, in that possessing a firearm for defense does indicate a willingness to kill in the process of stopping an attack.

On the cultural divide, how can I judge you harshly when you don't snap back with the expected forum nasty response? ;-) Maybe I can return the favor though, and give a bit more insight into my culture.

I currently live in a low-crime, midwestern US suburb. The chance of me ever needed to defend myself or my family with a gun is also low, but not zero. But I grew up in a more rural area, in an extended family where most hunted, and practically every household had multiple firearms. My stereotype of a gun owner was my father, my grandpa, my uncles, my aunts, my cousins, my friends. I had an air rifle at age 8, and my own .22 rifle at 12 or 13 (after I had passed a hunter's safety course). To hear someone denounce firearm ownership so universally, and to say that my teaching my children to safely and responsibly use firearms is obscene, hits me right in the gut as an attack on myself and the world I grew up in.

As I write this, I am reading back over your post, and had one other thought. You say you are unlikely to ever need to defend yourself against a gun. Where you live, how likely are you to have to defend yourself from an attack at all? In the absence of guns or some other equalizing tool, a typical woman is especially vulnerable to the typical (male) attacker. Again, I am fortunate enough to live in a low-crime area of the US, but if I had a sister or female friend living in a rougher neighborhood, I would certainly recommend to her that she arm (and train) herself for defense. Now she might want to consider alternatives to firearms, such as pepper spray, but I wouldn't want to rule out gun defense.

Anyway, thanks for one more time for the nice response, and I'm sorry I took you for a man from your earlier posts!

Re:Why?

[KDR_11k]

While we're at it:

Animism: Assumes things alive that aren't and living things to be the cause for all change ("where did that mountain come from?" "Adults piled it up")
Finalism: Assumes things exist to fulfill the purpose the kid attributes to them ("rocks exist to be thrown")

There was a third one but I can't remember it nor find a reference listing it. Guess those two were easier to remember because I think they explain creationism.

Re:Why?

[LWATCDR]

I looked at that search. I didn't fine any that linked to the actual data. Notice that my link was to the study and was hosted by Harvard.
I just don't buy the number of defensive gun uses. If you read even the links given it will say that a very high percentage didn't involve the gun being fired and a huge percentage where not reported to the police. Okay where did they get that data from? Second if the defensive use of the gun didn't involve a gun shot or a police report what where those uses? Someone heard something and felt better because they had a gun? Someone drove through a bad area of town and felt better because they had a gun?
You are saying that CDC claims between 30 and 40 thousand gun deaths a year. Are you saying that gun owners prevented over 830,000 shootings a year?
That just doesn't make any sense.

"Sure, criminal gun owners are more likely to go down in a gunfight. However, law-abiding gun owners are less likely."
You see that is such a great way to stack the odds.
Suicide is illegal so you don't have to count those. Not securing your gun is illegal in many places so you don't have to count those. Someone that losses their temper and shoots their wife they have broken the law.
I am not for outlawing guns. But they are dangerous. For most people do not make you or your family safer. My brother in law is a SWAT sniper and my brother owns some guns. I do not.

Re:Why?

[emarkp]

False.

John Lott (author of More Guns, Less Crime visited the UK to talk about gun control. To start his talk, he showed a front page story about a drive by shooting the previous day even though guns were banned.

Re:Why?

[MaillerPhong]

In light of today's events, I'd be surprised if this doesn't happen at my university. Alfred University's ZvsH game started last week, and today a professor saw one of the humans with their Nerf gun, freaked and called the police. The campus was locked down for several hours while they got the 'gunman' situation figured out. The faculty had been told beforehand that the game was going on, and there would be nerf guns being carried around, so this must've been a real winner of a prof.

What's really ironic for me is that I joined the game's Facebook group when this story was posted and linked to it. I made the comment that they better hope the (sleepy town's) police force didn't get too gung-ho about doing their job. Several people replied to the effect of 'haha, those people (at BGSU) are idiots.'

They're probably not laughing too much tonight.

The story, what there is of it, is listed on the U's front page.

Re:Why?

[redcaboodle]

What if someone else saw you shoot out of the window and this someone had a gun too? It'd be all of a few seconds before you were lying on the floorboards regretting your decision.

And what if that guy was spotted, too? Talk about circular firing squad.

Imagine one killer on a spree and a dozen would-be heroes randomly killing each other. Sounds like a fun FPS - but in real life?

Stupid ban

[ameyer17]

So they're using nerf guns. What's the big deal. Even if an innocent bystander gets caught in the crossfire, no big deal. Shouldn't they have better things to do?

Re:Stupid ban

[ameyer17]

Just to clarify, the first "they" is the roleplayers, the second "they" is the administration.

Re:Stupid ban

[M. Baranczak]

Nerf guns don't kill people; hordes of undead flesh-eating zombies do.

OK, your turn.

Re:Stupid ban

[calebt3]

Nerf guns don't kill people; hordes of undead flesh-eating zombies do.

+4, Informative That is sooo wrong...

Re:Stupid ban

[dlanod]

Typical roleplaying games... always wanting to Nerf undead.

Re:Stupid ban

[Scrameustache]

Nerf guns don't kill people; hordes of undead flesh-eating zombies do.

OK, your turn. Braiiiiiiiins...

Re:Stupid ban

[Eli Gottlieb]

Permission to sig that sagely remark?

Re:Stupid ban

[Idiomatick]

That and humans ruin everyone else's fun.

Re:Stupid ban

[Fireshadow]

Two.

1)When nerf guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have nerf guns.
2)I've seen a picture of a rack of shotguns with the caption "The damn zombies aren't going to kill themselves."

Good night!

Re:Stupid ban

[More_Cowbell]

Agreed.

http://drmcninja.com/index.html

May I suggest some great archives to peruse for your enjoyment. (Zombies don't appear until chapter four, as I recall, but all quite entertaining nonetheless).

Re:Stupid ban

[DKlineburg]

So, let's recap :

The undead were nerfed by the GM's,
Innocent bystanders submitted a report of greifing to the game server (University),
The humans in turn are nerfed by the game server,
Thus causing the humans to be ganked by the undead.

Yep, sounds like typical PVP role-playing MMIRL.

Re:Stupid ban

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerf guns don't kill people... except in rare and EXTREME bludgeoning cases.

Re:Stupid ban

[Gordonjcp]

It works fairly well all ways round.

Re:Stupid ban

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yeah, but if you're looking at the ban administrators, you may be a little disappointed...

Re:Stupid ban

[skiman1979]

Well I suppose when that innocent bystander is carrying a fresh cup of "molten lava" coffee from the McDonalds across the street, and he gets hit with a stray nerf missile, that coffee could do some damage when it spills all over him. Although that shouldn't be the fault of the Nerf gunner. The coffee drinker shouldn't be carrying that Molten Lava Coffee so close to the war zone anyway. I remember back when I was working at this one company, the marketing director got us all Nerf missile launchers for Christmas and we often had Inter-Office Warfare games with them. We'd be literally diving in and out of cubicles firing those missiles at each other when work was slow. The missiles had a whistler on them too. Sometimes on a quiet day, you'd hear the screeching sound of a missile being launched and know it's Game Time. :-)

Re:Stupid ban

[Minwee]

Nerf guns don't kill people; hordes of undead flesh-eating zombies do.

That is sooo wrong...

Well, what do _you_ think that hordes of undead flesh-eating zombies do? Save you 15% on your insurance?

Re:Stupid ban

[Ephemeriis]

So they're using nerf guns. What's the big deal. Even if an innocent bystander gets caught in the crossfire, no big deal. Shouldn't they have better things to do?

I would assume it was probably an issue with some innocent bystander not understanding what was going on or just having absolutely no sense of humor and complaining to someone who couldn't ignore them.

Although... Some LARPers build some very nice equipment. Maybe some folks had modded their Nerf guns so they looked more realistic - repainted them or something. I could see that causing quite a bit of trouble.

Or maybe it's just some kind of idiotic "zero tolerance" policy.

Re:Stupid ban

[genner]

They will eventually.
I hear the geckos on the chopping block.

Re:Stupid ban

[Phisbut]

Although... Some LARPers build some very nice equipment. Maybe some folks had modded their Nerf guns so they looked more realistic - repainted them or something.

True. There are some toy guns that might appear dangerous at first sight. A toy gun should always look like a toy. I got one of these and it's pretty fun to play with, and it looks like a toy. Although this version of the same gun looks really cool, it's too ambiguous for me to be comfortable with, and someone with an untrained eye could get scared at first sight.

Re:Stupid ban

[Himring]

Next ban on the list for Bowling Green U., toddlers who point with a finger and go, "pow!"

You NRA people bother me. Guns are bad! Nerf guns imaginarily kill people! Think of the children!...

Re:Stupid ban

[PlatyPaul]

Well, what do _you_ think that hordes of undead flesh-eating zombies do? Save you 15% on your insurance?

Or more!

::shivers::

Re:Stupid ban

[fm6]

I'm sorry, I just can't take a wimpy zombie seriously. Stopped by nerf guns? What's next? "Excuse me, sir, do you mind if I eat your brain?"

Re:Stupid ban

[M. Baranczak]

Help yourself.

Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean seriously, those are toys, they are specifically designed in a way that tries to eliminate every possibility of injury.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[M. Baranczak]

Anybody remember Silly String? Do they even still make that stuff?

A few years ago (can't remember when exactly) some dumb kid in Boston shot at another dumb kid with Silly String. The kid with Silly String all over him then took out a real gun, and shot the first kid dead. Mayor Menino's response to this was a proposal to ban Silly String within city limits.

This isn't exactly the same situation, but the political logic seems strangely reminiscent.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[SnoopJeDi]

Because the universities are trying to draw a line against other things. Airsoft for example, is banned in a lot of places.

These things don't get banned until somebody abuses the freedoms of the system and screws it up for everybody else.

Same old shit. Hope they push a good deal and get their Nerf back.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[SirSlud]

Only in America do you infringe upon the rights of silly string owners, not the gun owners.

I mean seriously .. that is a textbook example of why constitutionally granting the right for people to own firearms is a retarded idea. Responsible gun owners have every right to be pissed when somebody abuses the right to own a gun, but it bothers me how they compare it to other rights idiots might have that don't result in insta-kills.

People ask why america is being pussified - its simple. The right for any emotionally unstable dude to own guns is so sacrosanct that if its an institution that can't be attacked, the only politically viable action is to ban the silly string or the nerf gun. Ban the gun or the knife or the sword .. omgwtfbbq ensues.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[SirSlud]

oops, struck a nerve, apparently .. doesnt really answer my question tho. If people are so pissed off about banning silly string, nerf guns, etc because some moron abuses the power of guns, why not just regulate guns?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[bigstrat2003]

I mean seriously .. that is a textbook example of why constitutionally granting the right for people to own firearms is a retarded idea. No. This is a textbook example of the fact that people are retards. The constitutional right to own a gun is rooted in the idea that it's harder for the government to oppress an armed populace than an unarmed one. The fact that some people abuse that right doesn't make it bad.

Responsible gun owners have every right to be pissed when somebody abuses the right to own a gun, but it bothers me how they compare it to other rights idiots might have that don't result in insta-kills. Again, rights don't stop being rights just because they can be misused. I can use my right to free speech to ruin another person's career, but that doesn't mean free speech is bad. Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) to run down a pedestrian, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give a driver's license to anyone.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[uvajed_ekil]

I'm pretty sure that at some recent point in American history, being hit with fists has also led to getting shot. So to be consistent, we need to ban fists, too. Confiscate all hands, I say. Screw confiscating the arms that enable these crimes.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[hasdikarlsam]

Hang on.
I thought pedestrians weren't allowed on your highways?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[zenkonami]

Again, rights don't stop being rights just because they can be misused. I can use my right to free speech to ruin another person's career, but that doesn't mean free speech is bad. Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) to run down a pedestrian, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give a driver's license to anyone. You can use that free speech right to a point, but if you are uttering slander or libel, I think lines get drawn regarding the legality of it (at least as a civil matter.) That said, IANAL...

As far as the car thing goes, I tend to think of that in another category from the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, but maybe that's because I live in L.A.

I'm pretty mixed about the 2nd Amendment thing myself. I appreciate the notion of an armed populace being able to resist government oppression, but at this point the government seems to exercise such psychological puppetry over the populace that guns seem to be an impotent option...well, that and if the U.S. government could turn our own military against the civilians (and I really doubt that would work out right now), they have significantly more powerful guns.

How ironic...not being logged in on this machine my captcha was "prejudge".

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[ElBeano]

"If you're designing a government with the fundamental idea that all governments are corrupt, then you've failed before you've even begun."

Ok.... now give me an example of any government in the history of the world that wasn't corrupt.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[jimicus]

Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license)

Stop right there.

As soon as some sort of licensing (and, by implication, some procedure to get that license) is required, it's not a right any more, it's a privilege.

A privilege which can and should be taken away if you demonstrate that you can't be trusted with it.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[pereric]

So true. We assume everyone is driving, and make society harder to use with other kinds of locomotion (like, riding a bike or taking public transport). That means a preassure to give a driving license to everyone, regardsless of suitability as a driver, and far too lenient with revoking licenses. And the motor-normative circle goes on ...

Cars are heavy machinery with a big killing potential. Travelling (by *some* means, it could even be by foot) is a right. Driving is a privillege.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Anne Honime]

Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) Stop right there.
As soon as some sort of licensing (and, by implication, some procedure to get that license) is required, it's not a right any more, it's a privilege.

It's still a right if anyone can apply for the license without discrimination...

A privilege which can and should be taken away if you demonstrate that you can't be trusted with it.

... which is exactly the case with guns, because a convicted felon, as far as I know, loses the right to have a gun, in the USA.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Lunarsight]

Hm - they banned nerf guns, but is there also a ban on chainsaws?

You figure, those work well on zombies too.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[eat here_get gas]

"...
The right for any emotionally unstable dude to own guns is so sacrosanct

as a matter of fact (and law!), those people are specifically precluded from enjoying the 2nd Amendment...

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[xaxa]

I mean seriously .. that is a textbook example of why constitutionally granting the right for people to own firearms is a retarded idea. No. This is a textbook example of the fact that people are retards. The constitutional right to own a gun is rooted in the idea that it's harder for the government to oppress an armed populace than an unarmed one. But people can't play with Nerf Guns and Silly String. Maybe you should update the constitution to specifically allow these things.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[ajcham]

If you're designing a government with the fundamental idea that all governments are corrupt, then you've failed before you've even begun.

I'll admit my knowledge of US history is sparse, but I suspect the idea wasn't that all government's are corrupt, rather all governments are corruptible.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[ajcham]

A few years ago (can't remember when exactly) some dumb kid in Boston shot at another dumb kid with Silly String. The kid with Silly String all over him then took out a real gun, and shot the first kid dead. Mayor Menino's response to this was a proposal to ban Silly String within city limits.

You sure about that?

I've searched and cannot find any reference to this incident. Sure there are Silly String bans, but usually for anti-vandalism purposes (lame, but not as ridiculous as the above story).

I'm not trying to undermine your credibility, but I wouldn't expect coverage of such an episode to be difficult to find. Do you remember where you heard/read this?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Tony Hoyle]

It's still a right if anyone can apply for the license without discrimination...

There's plenty of discrimination. Not passed your test? No license. Fucked up too many times in the last year? License revoked for at least a year. Got caught drunk behind the wheel? License revoked permanently.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[sukotto]

I think Boston has really established itself as the premier home of nucking futjobs. Great work guys!

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

what a charming, naive notion that a bunch of whack jobs with pop-guns would be able to stand up against the might of the best funded military in the world :)

It's worked for the Iraqis.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[kalirion]

Anyone else find it strange that we're having this discussion the day after the South Park episode where they banned cats because some kids were getting high on cat urine?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Apocalypse111]

So basically, your argument is that a system organized around the weakest qualities of individuals will produce these same qualities in its leaders?

Perhaps certain qualities are an inseparable part of human nature. Our government has limited power by design.
Major geek points to anyone who gets the references.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[ckaminski]

I remember hearing this when I was in high-school (early 90's). I think it's an urban legend because and excuse that it's a shitty mess to clean up is pretty lame, but because a kid got shot, it's pretty scary.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[ckaminski]

That makes sense. It's like allowing people to play paintball in a mall. Innocent bystanders can and will get hurt.

Nerf? I could see a case, someone getting knocked down a flight of stairs, broken arms, hands, sprains. It's like letting people play football in the hallways. Why not, right?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Abcd1234]

Okay, you define that first. Personally, I can think of plenty of governments that continue to exist and serve the people. Hell, I'd wager the majority of first world nations have a functioning, first world nation has a working government that serves the people.

Basically, you're asking a stupid question. It's *impossible* to *disprove* that there exists an uncorruptable government because, given enough time, anything can happen. That said, there are many *many* stable democracies throughout the world that survive and prosper in the absence of corruption (or, at least, large scale corruption that would necessitate a violent revolt), the US included (having done so for hundreds of years, now).

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Abcd1234]

Err, that is, "It's *impossible* to *prove*"... and that first paragraph is just mangled. Yay proofreading. Oh well, I hope my point at least came across... :)

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Jarjarthejedi]

"If you're designing a government with the fundamental idea that all governments are corrupt, then you've failed before you've even begun."

Patently false. All humans are corruptible, if you don't believe that then you are a naive fool. All governments are run by humans. If you don't design your government around the fundamental idea that governments are corrupt then it will become corrupt and you'll have nothing you can do about it. Want some non-US examples? Just look at any modern European government (or at least most of them). Why do you think Monarchy no longer rules? (I know it still exists, but there's always a parliament with more power, at least to the best of my knowledge). The Magna Carta was designed as an answer to the corruption of a government which had been created with the idea that a non-corrupt government could work. The world is very lucky that it worked, because there was no built in recourse that could be used.

Power corrupts. If you don't believe that then you haven't experienced it. Any group with power needs to have built in checks on that power to prevent corruption from having an impact. This isn't a US only thing, most modern governments are designed in such a way. In fact the US took part of it from Britain's government and another part from a statement by a British historian. There are many reasons why the US is strange, holding that government may become corrupt and that checks on its power are needed is not one of them.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[bkr1_2k]

I thought it was general slashdot knowledge that Bush doesn't give a shit about the constitution. Why is he here posting AC in favor of the constitution.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[bkr1_2k]

That whole "problem firing on other Americans" thing isn't supported by the history of our country. There was that little thing called the US Civil War; it lasted 4 years and killed more citizens than all other US wars combined, 600000-70000 depending upon source.

While I tend to think that things have changed, you'll find that soldiers under threat of punishment for treason for disobeying orders will indeed fire upon other Americans. Hell, they won't even need that much incentive if the civil rights movements of the 60s are anything to judge from. Just convince them that the other guy is trying to "take away your American rights" and most soldiers will willingly fire on the "enemy" populace.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Xeth]

Just like when you design software with the understanding that software can fail, you've failed before you've even begin?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[bkr1_2k]

There is a significant difference between airsoft weapons, designed to look and feel like real weapons, and a nerfgun that is neon yellow and blue and looks nothing like a modern weapon. I'm sure you're right, that from a policing perspective it's easier to ban them all, but the cops should have used some common sense when they saw the nerf guns and told the kids to put them away, not cited them.

At University of Maryland this game was always played with bats and melee type weapons, no projectile weapons were allowed from what I saw during my time there. I never played, but it was hard to miss these people as they usually travelled in packs of 6-10 people and were clearly marked with bandanas, armbands, and ribbons that looked like flag football flags.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[aunticrist]

Oh, I agree that you will have soldiers that will do the soldier-ly thing and fire when ordered, but it will be a whole new bag of worms when they are told to fire on other Americans in this day and age because there is only so much propaganda and sheltering from the media that can happen for soldiers in today's world. I think the government will have a greater problem with soldiers deciding that they'd rather not occupy their hometown and instead might decide to drive their tank over to the "other side". Add to that a populace and an armed force that has shown it doesn't always agree with the motivations of its government and it can get pretty hairy for that government.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Eli Gottlieb]

That's because the US military wants to occupy Iraq, whereas most of its strength lies in sheer destruction.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[hotdiggitydawg]

Yeah, but the Rules of Engagement probably have a larger bearing on safety than the nature of the weapons...

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Rabid Cougar]

You're obviously new here. That would be every government on the planet except for the United States--which is The Devil Incarnate(TM).

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[govt-serpent]

Tada!! There's no point in just destroying a place completely. You need to occupy to derive any benefit (wealth, oil, slaves etc) from it. You cannot kill everyone, so it is possible for you to subjugate them to work for you. Thus, if you cannot kill everyone, they can possibly kill you. That's why the govt having superior firepower is pointless against its own armed citizenry. Also works for a conquering country against an armed populace. Do you think the aristocratic class would just want an empty country filled only with their soldiers?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[cosinezero]

I beg to differ. A gun's primary use is a deterrent. Guns are used as deterrents far much more of their lifetime than they are as lethal weapons. It's like razor wire. Is razor wire's only purpose to cut? If so, scissors are better at the job, since they do far more cutting in their lifetime. Razor wire's purpose is to deter.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[westlake]

It's worked for the Iraqis.

It works only when Gandhian non-violence works - which is to say it works only when your opponent gives a damn about the body count.

There are "Killing Fields" throughout history.

When the Romans decided they wanted to be done with Carthage they made quite a through job of it.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[j-turkey]

Because the universities are trying to draw a line against other things. Airsoft for example, is banned in a lot of places.

These things don't get banned until somebody abuses the freedoms of the system and screws it up for everybody else.

Same old shit. Hope they push a good deal and get their Nerf back.

Are you sure about the abuse of the Nerf guns? My first thought was that it was a response to the recent gun violence on college campuses (e.g. Virginia Tech). With comments like "We do not allow weapons or facsimiles of weapons on campus" sounds like a reactionary policy that an overzealous administrator might create. (Granted, that was in 2006 - before the VT shootings).

Universities and colleges are extremely bureaucratic places, with silly policies abound. Perhaps you're right that there was some history of abuse that fostered these policies, I don't have anything to support either idea. Based upon supposition alone, my experience with higher education leads me to believe that this policy was created (and interpreted) based on a different motivation.

I wonder if a burning couch shoved off of a 5th story balcony could be considered a weapon (or a facsimile thereof)? ;)

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[M. Baranczak]

This was sometime in the early 90s. That's the best I can remember. And I couldn't find any solid references either.

There's at least one other person in this thread who remembers this story, so I know I didn't just make it up, but for all I know it could be complete horseshit. On the one hand, it sounds just like the sort of thing that politicians like to do; on the other hand, it sounds just like the sort of thing that Mike Barnicle might have made up to fill up some space on a slow day.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[STrinity]

If you're designing a government with the fundamental idea that all governments are corrupt, then you've failed before you've even begun.

How is it a failure to design for an optimal system instead of an ideal one? Would you criticize an engineer for assuming that all cars are capable of killing people and trying to design one that will minimize the danger as much as possible?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Reziac]

That's why I hope that at least SOME of the senior officers still remember what they were taught about NOT following illegal orders -- and that at least SOME of the recruits are still taught this same concept.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Reziac]

Which is why Rome was quickly done fighting with Carthage, while we're still slogging it out in Iraq, and no end in sight.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[i_liek_turtles]

If you're designing a government with the fundamental idea that all governments are corrupt, then you've failed before you've even begun.
Or you're just not naieve.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[The Analog Kid]

Anybody remember Silly String? Do they even still make that stuff?

Yes, for military purposes, for detecting tripwires. (won't trip them, just sticks to them) The stuff uses a CFC propellant so I don't think you can buy it anymore.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[SmittyTheBold]

That said, there are many *many* stable democracies throughout the world that survive and prosper in the absence of corruption...the US included.

Ever heard of "checks and balances?" It's a system to prevent corruption. When any one person has too much power, that entity will exert power in bad ways. I challenge you to show me a stable, fair government that didn't account for corruption in its creation.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[Abcd1234]

Ah, but this is the very point. There exists governments that aren't corrupt because they are designed to fight the seeds of corruption through things such as checks and balances.

So, no, there does not exist place in there world where there aren't corrupt people. But there are plenty of places in the world where there aren't corrupt *governments*, and that is so *precisely* because of the way those governments are structured, as you yourself have illustrated.

As such, to get back to the original poster's point: having the right to own a gun embedded in the constitution *because* it's inevitable that the government will become corrupt is extremely cynical (which, to me, describes the entire American mindset vis a vis the government, and explains many things, including the healthcare and education system, etc). After all, as I've already illustrated (and you've been unable to dispute), there are governments in the world that are not corrupt and do work for their citizenry, and have done so since their inception. And they do so, as you point out, because they were designed to resist corrupting influences.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that, under a totalitarian regime, a handgun as rather little effect against the armed forces of an oppressive government...

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[SirSlud]

I can use my right to drive on the highway

Your right to drive on the highway? Is that The 76th amendment?

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[SirSlud]

Similarly, I can use my right to drive on the highway (conferred upon me by my driver's license) to run down a pedestrian

Hey, I can stab my toothbrush into anybodies eye .. but why do I buy a toothbrush or a car? Why dont you give me some good examples of people who earned their driving privileges to kill someone?

Fucking moron.

Re:Why would anyone ban nerf guns?

[SirSlud]

The mistake is thinking that in a first world nation, power comes from might. Theres a reason why the 1st is based on allowing people to communicate, and the second is based on allowing people to shoot.

That's all I'm saying. I think the 1st is the reason the US citizens are empowered and happy, not the 2nd. When you look at incarceration rates and violence data, it seems quite clear to me that some countries have figured out that the 1st is VASTLY more important than the 2nd.

Seriously, if US citizenry ever had to rise up, they'd use the guns given to them by the government. It's not like it'd be the US army versus the homeland. It seems quite obvious to me that the right to personally bear arms would have absolutely no value to an armed insurrection. It'd be completely incidental. Gun violence in the states, by accident, or by crime, is very high. It seems to me that it'd be astute to downplay the cultural affinity for gun ownership, because at the end of the day, it doesn't seem to improve day to day live for citizens, and its unlikely to factor into a situation where citizens feel they need to rebel.

Banning Nerf?

[Caboosian]

That's like banning my childhood.

The wussification of a people is complete....

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

...when they're afraid of people getting hurt with a FREAKING *NERF* GUN!

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[StarvingSE]

Can you even Nerf a Nerf gun????

*brain asplodes*

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[Scrameustache]

...when they're afraid of people getting hurt with a FREAKING *NERF* GUN! My little cousin got a nerf bow at a birthday, first thing his big brother did when he got his hands on it was to stick a pointy toothpick in the foam arrow and to shoot at balloons next to the parents chatting in a corner.
My cousin can make ANYTHING a hazard. It's a gift (from the devil).

But this isn't about that, this is about appearances: Can't have people playing guns on a university campus! Think of the children!

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[davolfman]

I dunno. If they're viral alien critters invading the North pole with a nerf allergy there's reason to be afraid.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[Dun Malg]

No, they aren't afraid of somebody getting hurt [directly] by a Nerf gun. They're concerned about the consequences when somebody sees a bunch of people running around carrying weapons - and calls 911. Or decides to tackle the 'weapon wielder'. Or raises a vigilante posse to go after the 'weapon wielder'. Etc... Etc... seriously, have you never seen a nerf gun? No one would EVER mistake one of those oversized cartoon-color toys for any sort of real weapon. This is done on purpose. They're nerf guns, fer cripes sake!

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[FoolsGold]

They're not afraid of people getting hurt - They're afraid of being sued.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[cheater512]

*Zombies swarm around the brain gibs*

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[The Evil Couch]

Anyone that can confuse a Nerf gun with a real gun is an idiot and needs to identify themselves, so they can be slapped.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[Gideon Fubar]

+1 Obscure Web Comic Reference

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[cjanota]

People are that stupid though. The people who would call the police thinking that a nerf gun was a real gun are the same people that sounded the alarm over LED mooninites.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[Anonymous Coward]

"No one would EVER mistake one of those oversized cartoon-color toys for any sort of real weapon."

Umm, these are Americans we're talking about, so, yes, some idiot will claim they looked too realistic and call in the stormtroopers.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No one would EVER mistake one of those oversized cartoon-color toys for any sort of real weapon.

Captain Kirk did, and the "weapon" did not work, of course. He should have taken a six-gun!

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[westlake]

seriously, have you never seen a nerf gun? No one would EVER mistake one of those oversized cartoon-color toys for any sort of real weapon.

... when looking at a static color photo in good light.

You have caught a glimpse of a player in motion after sunset.

You are not a participant in the live-action combat RPG, you are not aware that a game is in progress.

Shape, scale, distance and movement are becoming much more difficult to judge. That is, after all, the fundamental challenge if you are to survive a stealth shooter. In real life, it is the sniper's cloak of invisibility.

The nerf's day-glow colors have faded to an indistinct gun-metal gray....

You make the call.

Remember that it is not only the weapon but how it is being carried that defines a threat.

Is it really so impossible to imagine the toy being mistaken for the real thing?

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[Attila Dimedici]

No, they aren't afraid of somebody getting hurt [directly] by a Nerf gun. They're concerned about the consequences when somebody sees a bunch of people running around carrying weapons - and calls 911. Or decides to tackle the 'weapon wielder'. Or raises a vigilante posse to go after the 'weapon wielder'. Etc... Etc... You're close, what they are concerned about is people getting the idea that guns can be fun and getting a real gun, going to a shooting range and learning how to use it. Then the students might realize that guns aren't evil, in and of themselves.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[pete-classic]

What trigger-happy land do you live in, where the cops just start bustin' caps at anyone behaving in any way they don't immediately understand? Seriously, wherever it is they need to FIX THEIR FUCKING TRAINING PROGRAM.

-Peter

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[R2.0]

"Or decides to tackle the 'weapon wielder'. Or raises a vigilante posse to go after the 'weapon wielder'. "

Given the (lack of) action by the students at VT, the other school shootings, and the mall shootings to defend themselves, I'd say those last two aren't worries at all. Which is exactly how the school administration and government administration want it - sheep waiting for the shepherd to save them when the wolves come, instead of free, responsible adults in charge of their own safety.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[apoc.famine]

Yes.

And when we played such games as undergraduates, EVERYONE knew they were going on. Because they were well advertised, the participants were numerous and very visible, and we routinely either were asked wtf we were doing, or cheated by asking non-participants if they had seen the opponents.

You'd have to be a first-class dumbass to mistake a nerf gun being used as part of a campus-wide game for "the real thing". Hell, at my school even SECURITY knew when we were doing something like this, and generally laughed about it. Because kids playing a campus-wide game were not getting into trouble in all the various ways they normally would.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[Phisbut]

My little cousin got a nerf bow at a birthday, first thing his big brother did when he got his hands on it was to stick a pointy toothpick in the foam arrow and to shoot at balloons next to the parents chatting in a corner.

If a ban of NERF guns can be rationalized by rationalized by some kid putting toothpicks in foam arrows, then a ban on real guns can be rationalized by criminals using them to kill people.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[ShadowsHawk]

I made a functional crossbow when I was 12. The imagination is what turns a toy into a weapon. Ritalin for everyone!

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[m50d]

Yeah, you can put a weaker spring in there, or cut down the darts.

(I know you're joking, but I had to answer)

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[Ogive17]

That reminds me of a story... when I was in high school (about 13 years ago) my friends and I were making a mobster movie one summer. We had a plastic cap gun that use the string of red caps, and those were loaded into a clip which was then appeared to be loaded like a regular pistol clip. A guy in another car saw two kids playing with a realistic looking gun and followed my friends to give info to the cops. About 10 minutes later a cop shows up at my friends' house and so we all go outside. He mentions getting a call about us playing with a gun.. we really had no clue what he was talking about at first, then I figured out he was talking about the cap gun and went inside to get it. The cop took it for a few minutes, called it in to dispatch, gave it back to us and just said to be a little more discrete when driving around in public with something that looked real from a distance (it did).

Moral of the story... what the fuck happened to this country in the last 10-15 years?!?!? I'm not even 30 years old and things I remember doing in high school would get me arrested now, and it was never anything illegal (except maybe toilet papering).

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[gripen40k]

Ha, well how about this nerf gun? Where there's a will, there's a way :).

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[elrous0]

In their defense, college students are very sensitive these days. After all, when fraternities have "No smoking, no drinking" policies in their houses, you know that manhood is truly dead.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[bkr1_2k]

Well, it used to be called the United States of America, but I've just recently proposed we change the name to "Check your rights and your brain at the border- they'll be ready for you when you want to leave"

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[noidentity]

Everyone knows that NERF guns are just a gateway weapon. It's just a slippery slope to them using real guns and rocket launchers.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[davolfman]

I'm not really sure Sluggy Freelance counts as obscure, at least in webcomics circles. Now a Miracle of Science reference probably would be.

Re:The wussification of a people is complete....

[srvivn21]

No, they aren't afraid of somebody getting hurt [directly] by a Nerf gun. They're concerned about the consequences when somebody sees a bunch of people running around carrying weapons - and calls 911. Or decides to tackle the 'weapon wielder'. Or raises a vigilante posse to go after the 'weapon wielder'. Etc... Etc... seriously, have you never seen a nerf gun? No one would EVER mistake one of those oversized cartoon-color toys for any sort of real weapon. This is done on purpose. They're nerf guns, fer cripes sake! That depends entirely on the owner.

Via.

Re:Urban Dead cosplaying?

[deopmix]

I need a +1 Introspective Mod.

Nerf Cricket Bat?

[kidsizedcoffin]

Zombie want soft-springy-foam Braaaaiiiinnnss. We're not unreasonable, I mean, no one's going to eat your eyes.

Re:Urban Dead cosplaying?

[compro01]

hey, they're up and running around. they're doing their part to fight the looming obesity crisis, in addition to training to combat the looming undead crisis. =D

Nerf Guns

[zippthorne]

Wouldn't roleplayers support a ban on nerfing guns?

There're too many double negatives in that headline.

Now THIS is news for nerds!

[Marbleless]

Forget the rubbish about which OS has the biggest testes, or what our rights are that has been corrupting /. in recent times :)

Re:Now THIS is news for nerds!

[mwvdlee]

Without nerf guns, how do you propose we fight out these OS wars?

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[bennomatic]

no... University Students Seek Mooooore Braiiiiins!

parents complaining?

[joyfeather]

I'm not sure if the college administration was making up the part about parents "complaining" or not. I still haven't figured out why parents want to treat college students like they are still in middle school, and why colleges are willing to go along with it!

Re:parents complaining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you BEEN to a college lately? I work in one. Take the fact that you can get all the way to college on junior high level knowledge and social skills, add the hormones of large groups of 18+ year olds who just moved out of home, then introduce alcohol and drugs to the equation.
I'd personally say middle school was MORE mature.

Re:parents complaining?

[joyfeather]

So what's new? It's been a couple of years since the LAST time I went to college, but college should be about more then just studying books- it should also be about learning to make your own decisions, and not have Mom and Dad make them for you.

Re:parents complaining?

[Charcharodon]

Didn't you hear? Adulthood has been moved up to 41.

Re:parents complaining?

[chromatic]

I still haven't figured out why parents want to treat college students like they are still in middle school, and why colleges are willing to go along with it!

If parents are paying for expensive babysitters, why not oblige them?

Re:parents complaining?

[ISurfTooMuch]

It's money, my friend. Parents are insisting that colleges protect little Junior from any exposure to that scary thing called the real world, and administrators, eager to lure in the parents' dollars, are willing to oblige. Of course, Mom and Dad don't know or choose to ignore the fact that little Junior is doing shots of whatever alcoholic beverage he can find, then chasing them with a six pack or three, right before he gets behind the wheel to drive down to his frat house, where his brothers have assembled a swap with all the sorority chicks they can find, girls whose parents think they're off in the library studying.

It's all about the money, and the school that can most effectively provide the illusion that the kids are safe and secure, reality be damned, gets a big chunk of it.

Re:parents complaining?

[DKlineburg]

Wait... This just in, adulthood has been replaced with wussification. The government is now the parent and we will be considered children until DNF is completed!

DNF reference FTW!

Re:parents complaining?

[MrNaz]

It should also be about learning as much as you can, so the massive social investment in educating you can pay off when you contribute to the wider community. If you're more interested in getting laid, getting drunk, and getting away with doing the least possible, then GTF out of the way so that someone who is not a societal write off with a bad case of intellectual myopia can have the college spot that you don't seem to care about.

Re:parents complaining?

[JamesP]

Of course, Mom and Dad don't know or choose to ignore the fact that little Junior is doing shots of whatever alcoholic beverage he can find, then chasing them with a six pack or three, right before he gets behind the wheel to drive down to his frat house, where his brothers have assembled a swap with all the sorority chicks they can find, girls whose parents think they're off in the library studying.


And apart from the DWI part, what is wrong with that again??

Re:parents complaining?

[boristdog]

Didn't you hear? Adulthood has been moved up to 41.

Sweet!

I'm finally a grown-up!

Re:parents complaining?

[techpawn]

You're only young one but you can be immature and irresponsible for you whole life then hope that someone will come along bail you out before you implode in on yourself...(I'm looking at you bear stearns)

Re:parents complaining?

[bkr1_2k]

Get over yourself. Seriously, just because some people actually enjoy drinking and can get laid doesn't mean you should be bitter about it.

It takes some people a couple of years to figure out how to handle adulthood. Others can hack it and drop out. College is about learning, but not all that learning comes from professors and books. I'd dare say most of it comes from what goes on outside of class, ie learning time management, money management, social skills, and many other things.

Getting drunk on the weekends when your 18-24 doesn't detrimentally affect your ability to "contribute to the wider community" in the long term for most of the people who actually act that way in college. The few who don't grow out of it often still contribute to society, whether you like to think they do or not.

Get off your high horse and grow up.

Re:parents complaining?

[awdau]

Didn't you hear? Adulthood has been moved up to 41. Holy shit, you mean I am a kid again.

Wahoo, time for me to go and play with my Atari 2600, tonka trucks and my toy cap guns. :)

I hope I am still allowed to buy my alkyhol

Re:parents complaining?

[Charcharodon]

Sorry young man, an Atari will rot your brain, the Tonka's will give you tetnus, and the toy cap guns will get you shot by the cops. Please goto your room where you will be safe.

Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Nova Express]

A friend of mine had one of these in college. We were running around zapping each other in a restaurant parking lot when a cop pulled up, lights flashing, and informed my friend he was about two second away from being shot before the cop realized it was a water gun. He was Not Amused.

Nerf should be fine as long as it's obvious that it IS a Nerf weapon. If not, or if it's taking place at night. be sure you play in a place where everyone knows you're in a game, or be prepared for some Very Bad Consequences if you're not careful.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Beer_Smurf]

If you look at the pics from the original articles, they are brightly colored, oddly shaped and very obviously toys.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Idiomatick]

I'd have sued the crazy ass cop just for saying that. He could have drawn his weapon if they gun replicas and not obvious... But 2seconds from shooting you BEFORE even confronting you on it thats messed up. Endangerment to the people, have his gun revoked. (I say this being close to a number of cops who average drawing their weapons once per 25~30years ... but i'm in Canada so)

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Original Replica]

when a cop pulled up, lights flashing, and informed my friend he was about two second away from being shot before the cop realized it was a water gun.

That's just a sign that cops are trigger happy. He should have been about two seconds away from a cop yelling "This is the Police! Drop Your Weapon!". Seriously, when the biggest danger of using a toy isn't the toy itself but the possibility of being shot by the cops, is it the toy that is a danger or the cops?

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Cadallin]

Far too many Cops in the USA have a very Cowboy attitude. And even more unfortunately, it seems the people in the USA have very little interest in doing anything about it. There is exactly zero chance of any kind of disciplinary action being taken against officers for dangerously aggressive behavior, up until the point that they shoot an innocent person. Even then, in my experience of cases I know about in detail, it is very, very iffy. If the victim is black, there's no hope at all, unless it is caught on tape. Hispanic victims are about the same. The only things I know that tend to get a reaction are if the victim is rich and white, OR if the cop blows up and shoots a brother officer in anger (which happens more often than ANYBODY realizes. Why? It often doesn't get prosecuted and is hushed up by the local media). That's about the only thing I know that will actually get a cop fired PDQ.

There are WAY too many dangerously unhinged individuals with the attitude of "I AM THE LAW!" running around in uniform.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[MrNaz]

Perhaps this will interest you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html
It kind of highlights what you say nicely.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[LordLucless]

realistic looking toy guns

http://www.adorablekidsdressup.com/Cloud%20Nine%20Images/Shooting_Gallery/Nerf_Maverick.jpg

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[jonadab]

> I say this being close to a number of cops who average drawing
> their weapons once per 25~30years ... but i'm in Canada so

It's about the same in rural areas in the US.

All that nonsense you see on TV about police drawing their weapons multiple times per hour and actually shooting people with them? That's pretty much Hollywood stuff, though the big cities are MUCH closer to it than rural areas. In the case of the poster who described his friend nearly being shot over a water gun, either the cop was deliberately exaggerating to scare the boys into compliance, or he lives in a city of over a million people, or both. Nobody would actually get shot for using a water gun anywhere I've ever lived (mostly medium-sized cities, in the range of six to twelve thousand people). In fact, almost all cases of people getting shot with firearms in the places I've lived have been hunting accidents of one sort or another.

Bowling Green is in the general vicinity of Toledo, but I don't think it's in the actual urban part of the city (in fact, I thing Bowling Green is pretty much a small city of its own, not really a suburb), so I'm pretty sure what's going on here is just a bunch of "what if a parent sues us" thinking.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[xaxa]

French cop: "Stop! Stop! Or I'll shoot!" *bang* *bang*
American cop: *bang* *bang* "Stop! Stop! Or I'll shoot!"
British cop: "Stop! Stop! Or... or I'll shout 'Stop!' some more!"

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Drall]

"Nerf should be fine as long as it's obvious that it IS a Nerf weapon."

Elsewhere in this thread, someone's pointed out criminals painting the tips of their gun barrels orange so they look more like Airsoft guns.

And you can buy gun paint, not just in camouflage, but in a variety of bright flashy colours, to make The Real Thing(tm) look like more like a Nerf gun.

When Bloomberg tried to ban the sale of these paints in NYC, the company making them brought out a special line named for him. Who needs a bright pink pistol? According to the company director 'Women like to accessorize their firearms'. Lovely.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[neomunk]

That is the reason I do not support gun control.

I'd be fine with gun control if it were universal, but it never is; the proposals for gun control invariably leave firearms in the hands of an aggressive and -legally protected- class of violent criminals. I'll look more favorably upon gun control when a shiny piece of tin pinned to some psychopath's chest doesn't give him or her the ability to gun me down without consequence.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[kalirion]

So I'm guessing nothing came out of that lawsuit? Seems strange it didn't make national news, I'd think the media would be all over that.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[MrNaz]

Sure.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/04/killing-of-derek-hale-death-by-police.html
http://nynerd.com/sgt-derek-j-hale-usmc-murdered-by-delaware-police/
http://www.rense.com/general76/del.htm
http://www.google.com/

That last one is a gold mine.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[efity]

Stock they aren't much, but some people spend a lot of time repainting them to look realistic.

Imagine what this one looks like from 20-50 feet away:
http://tigersharkiv.deviantart.com/art/Double-Shot-65664481

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Forseti]

To be fair, this anecdote was referring to an Uzi water gun, which I've owned and is rather more realistic.

However, I still think that police reaction here was too aggressive...

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Archangel Michael]

I'm sorry but your facts are 100% right and yet you made a 100% wrong conclusions.

I'll try to be brief. I was arrested, by cops, while being in a private residence for being "drunk in public". Funny thing was, I was neither drunk, nor in public and got my butt kicked by the cops for mentioning that fact when I was being arrested.

I'm white and male.

My lawyer said to me, after my acquittal, that had I been a minority, I could have sued for false arrest, probably would have won, except for one thing. I was a "rich white man".

It happens often, but "rich white men" can't complain about being "oppressed" like women, minorities the poor, and other "special" classes of people can. After all, we're not oppressed. Except that we are!

Some cops are asshats. Most aren't. Asshats are equal opportunity and don't discriminate. My experience anyway.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[kabocox]

The only things I know that tend to get a reaction are if the victim is rich and white, OR if the cop blows up and shoots a brother officer in anger (which happens more often than ANYBODY realizes. Why? It often doesn't get prosecuted and is hushed up by the local media). That's about the only thing I know that will actually get a cop fired PDQ.

There are WAY too many dangerously unhinged individuals with the attitude of "I AM THE LAW!" running around in uniform.

Well, they can get in major trouble if they get caught by another agency for anything drinking related. I've heard some get in trouble because they told other people that they'd like to fuck them. I've heard of people getting in trouble for fucking on duty. That's not usually a firing offense, but will lead to a few days off without pay. (Those cases are usually the officer and their S.O. getting caught doing it. They are normal people.)

Cops are the most monitored employees that we have on the planet at the moment. Most of what patrol cops do is recorded. Everything they say over the radio or transmit over a computer is recorded. You'd be surprised at how often that they get in trouble for what they say over the radio or over the incar computer email. Not firing offenses, but black marks on their record. You'd be surprised at how much a police department is about image and they generally want their uniformed cops to look and act like the most upstanding citizens that the society has. Most of those black marks are about cops not looking like super cop.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[silas_moeckel]

Possibly cops should not be 2 seconds away from shooting anybody? Seriously they have a hard job but lets not let them off there is little reason for cops to even have a gun let alone unholster it. Having society alter itself to make the job of policing easier means the police have already failed.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[westlake]

If you look at the pics from the original articles, they are brightly colored, oddly shaped and very obviously toys

To repeat: That is only true if you have a clear view of the play in daylight.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[awdau]

A great example of this is watching the TV show COPS.

Way way too gung ho.
The funniest(well not really) bit is when they say at the start of the show.
'All people are assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law'

And then you watch the coppers standing and kneeling on the back of peoples necks and backs telling them to stop resisting, when they are twisting and wrenching the persons arm from their socket placing the persons arm in an unnatural position behind their back, even when the person isn't resisting.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[Cadallin]

My objection is this, what exactly do you expect your gun to do for you when a swat team randomly kicks down your door? Assuming that you actually use it, and AREN'T summarily killed, the Police and DA are going to push for the death penalty because "you're a cop killer." It doesn't matter that the police were violating the law. You're fucked.

It's not fair. I agree 100%. But I said earlier that there seems little interest in doing anything about it, and that's the problem. The way things are set up, guns are more of liability to victims of violence than they are a protection. Guns may make you feel better, but they don't do anything to really help the reality that you can be vanished to Guantanamo Bay (Or who knows where else) at any time.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[neomunk]

It will create a story on the nightly news about a cop (or 6) getting shot while raiding an innocent man's home. It'll let the totalitarians know that there is a price to be paid for their control structures. Mostly, it'll keep that sort of thing from happening any time someone with a badge gets uppity, keep the bar raised, so to speak.

In short, it would be a demonstration of unwillingness to roll over for someone who looks 'tougher' than me, strange in this day and age, I know.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[KevinIsOwn]

You may have heard of a news source with editors called a Newspaper. These tend to be more reliable than the shitty blogs you mentioned. The NY Times bears no mention of this case, which it would if someone was actually shot by the police with any sort of controversy. They froth at the mouth at that sort of story.

Re:Better than Uzi Water Guns

[MrNaz]

Perhaps I'm just a nutty conspiracy theorist, but the fact that the mainstream media has not covered it bears no small significance to me. I think that the number of places it has been reported though means that the event actually did happen. The only news source I can find with it mentioned is the tiniest of footnotes in this article:
http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7996749

I have a funny story about a similar Nerf game...

[AcidPenguin9873]

called Assassin that some frats and/or dorms play at UIUC. A guy locked himself in his room to avoid an assassin, who then camped right outside his door, ready to strike the instant he opened the door. Supposedly, the guy really had to do #2, but rather than open the door and lose, he crapped out his 2nd floor window.

Do you feel lucky?

[coren2000]

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire 10 nerf darts or only nine?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a Nerf Dart Tag Magstrike the most powerful nerfgun in the world, and would tickle your nose with a perfect shot, you've got to ask yourself a question:

Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

http://www.hasbro.com/nerf/default.cfm?page=viewproduct&product_id=17890

Re:Do you feel lucky?

[mhalagan]

I'd rather have a Vulcan over the Magstrike, but thats just me :-p http://www.ohgizmo.com/2008/02/19/nerf-vulcan-ebf-25-is-plastic-and-foam-pwnage/

Re:Do you feel lucky?

[m50d]

I'd take a big bad bow myself. An elegant weapon for a more civilized age.

Re:Do you feel lucky?

[Jax Omen]

Magstrikes fire all their darts in one go. You can't only fire 9 out of 10.

Re:Do you feel lucky?

[Impeesa]

I always thought the most powerful nerf gun in the world was the vintage nerf crossbow (properly tuned, of course). Example!

wow

[ILuvRamen]

And to think my college's AITP chapter was planning a possible airsoft gun event AT my college (on the weekend). We never got a dependable plastic sheeting to cover the floor to collect the BBs or empty room of permission though :( But both of our supervisors didn't think it was a bad idea.

I'm playing right now, and HvZ is awesome

[wal9001]

Penn State's spring semester game is just getting underway (stealth zombies period ends at noon tomorrow), and it's fucking awesome, just like last semester's was. Yes, they let us use nerf guns, and nobody's been injured except for one guy who broke his foot while falling down some stairs last game. That's why we make people sign waivers.

It's the best game ever. Hope they get the issues cleared up, as nerf guns and the associated modifications (yeah, I'm an engineering student) are a really fun aspect of it. If your college doesn't play, go get it started. I recommend talking it over w/ the campus cops first though, just to make sure you won't have problems like this.

Re:I'm playing right now, and HvZ is awesome

[Eli Gottlieb]

And to top it off, at my school (UMass) "Still Alive" by Jonathan Coulton has become the semi-official anthem of Humans vs. Zombies.

This was a triumph. I'm making a note here: BRRRRAAAAIIIINNNSSSS!

Re:I'm playing right now, and HvZ is awesome

[R2.0]

That's because you go to a school in PA where the first day of deer season is a de facto state holiday.

It's teh state where, every year, one MEELION men armed with weapons that can penetrate body armor leave home to perform both stationary and mobile operations, each the intent on inflicting severe bodily injury - all well within the confines of the law. And most years, NOT A SINGLE PERSON gets shot.

Yes, it is possible to keep and bear arms without turning into a slavering murderers. I think that's what Sarah Brady and her controllers are afraid of - people being armed, having power, and having the potential to use that power, even though they won't unless necessary. Intentionally restricting the POTENTIAL power of the individual is classis, racist, elitist, and every other -ist i can think of. It is saying to another "I am afraid of you, and therefore I am going to try to remove that fear by removing your power to make me afraid." It is the ultimate in moral cowardice.

Re:I'm playing right now, and HvZ is awesome

[wal9001]

Despite what you may have heard about most of Pennsylvania, this stereotype doesn't really hold true for University Park and State College (yeah, I know it's a lame name for a town). It's a fairly liberal area, but if you go 10 miles in any direction, you're likely to find what you described.

Re:I'm playing right now, and HvZ is awesome

[R2.0]

While State College may be liberal (big surprise - that's where the faculty and administration lives), and the administration at UP may lean liberal (they'd be laughed at when they go to conventions), keep in mind that most of the STUDENTS are from "10 miles in any direction". And I'd hazard a guess that the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh student, who might tend liberal, are underrepresented - they have a lot of college options closer to home. So the student body tends more conservative. And those students typically lay low - activism isn't their thing. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on, they either don't have time between classes and homework for things like protests, or they aren't interested in anything they can't drink, fuck, or drive - probably both.

I went to Lehigh, which had much the demographic and setting writ small.The student newspaper always railed about student "apathy" - why weren't we protesting the war (Gulf I), etc. The Arts & Science majors would make a showing, and be pretty much ignored by the Engineering and Business majors on their way to classes/pub night.

Hell, my brother had an ARSENAL in his dorm room at State College - handguns, deer rifles, compound bows, knives, blowguns, slingshots - and no one batted an eye.

Take a page from fantasy LARP

[Scrameustache]

To defend themselves, humans can use improvised foam melee weapons.

Bonus: It makes it more realistic (what are the chances you'll have your guns with you on Z day?).

Re:Take a page from fantasy LARP

[timeOday]

Heck, they should just switch over to throwing tennis balls at each other. And if that fails, wads of paper. Try banning paper!

Re:Take a page from fantasy LARP

[MrNaz]

They would, muttering some excuse about the need to prepare students for the paperless office. It's like how they discourage free expression in preparing students for the thoughtless career.

What do we want? BRRRAAAIIIIIINNNSSSS!!!!

[Eli Gottlieb]

When do we want 'em? BRRRRAAAAIIIINNNSSSSS!!!!

Here at UMass Amherst we're currently in the opening days of our second game of Humans vs. Zombies. The first was played beginning last Halloween. I'm currently a zombie.

To all those telling us to get lives: we have them. Humans often get tagged because they tried to continue normal campus life during the game. It's not a LARPing thing: nobody dresses up; we just wear a band around our arm or head to indicate team status. Games usually last a couple of weeks, and consist of normal play coupled with "missions" that reward either human or zombie for accomplishing objectives as a team. One of those missions is always a food drive for the poor. Sure, we have to hide our Nerf guns during room inspections, but even the RAs really don't give a damn (like they apparently do at Bowling Green. To top it off, HvZ players are usually some of the coolest, most interesting people on campus (including numerous attractive women).

It's good clean fun for college kids that doesn't necessarily involve getting wasted (though you can, and we do, play wasted here at UMass). What's not to like?

also LEDs are weapons of mass destruction...

[wizardforce]

all of this trouble because:

The students were issued citations for disorderly conduct, according to Chief Jim Wiegand of the University police. Weigand said the students created a panic situation by carrying what appeared to be firearms on campus. "We do not allow weapons or facsimiles of weapons on campus," he said.

then I suppose they don't allow pencils or pens on campus because they resemble dangerous things like ice picks and no silverware of any kind because they resemble pitchforks and gutting knives. there's trying to prevent confusion of whether something is a deadly weapon or not and then there's bureaucratic stupidity. guess which this one is.

Re:also LEDs are weapons of mass destruction...

[Scrameustache]

then I suppose they don't allow pencils or pens on campus because they resemble dangerous things like ice picks When there's a rash of mass-murders on campuses using an ice-pick, they'll ban things that remind them of ice-picks.

For the meantime, lets just be happy you can still have a camera tripod on campus.

Re:also LEDs are weapons of mass destruction...

[wizardforce]

When there's a rash of mass-murders on campuses using an ice-pick,

it'll happen some day. The only reason it hasn't happened already is that melee weapons require the attacker to be up close and personal with whoever they're after. It's not an option for them yet as it increases the risk of them being injured before too many people get hurt and secondly I doubt they want to see their work up close, they require some level of detachment that distance provides.

Re:also LEDs are weapons of mass destruction...

[Winders]

No weapons on campus? That's gonna mess with the fencing club surely...

Re:also LEDs are weapons of mass destruction...

[Asklepius M.D.]

Here's a true story. (and I'll mod myself off-topic for this one) - A few years ago I was an enlisted wingwiper (Air Force pile-it) stationed in Anchorage, Alaska. I was very active in my off-duty time as a medic with the local volunteer search and rescue folks and did my share of avalanche rescue and backcountry searches for wandering tourists. Needless to say, I (and my patients) relied fairly heavily on my mountaineering gear which included......an ICE AXE! (cue ominous music!). During a barracks inspection, our safety-conscious NCOs decided that my ice axe was a lethal weapon and confiscated it (I know, I know.....military, guns, bombs, but NO ICE AXES!). It took me a month to work my way far enough up the chain of command to get an exception made. How dare I use something so dangerous to save lives!

Re:also LEDs are weapons of mass destruction...

[ProfBooty]

yeah we had a rifle club on campus, an archery club, fencing, various Martial arts clubs, the SCA

Re:also LEDs are weapons of mass destruction...

[Culture20]

Taking away the weapons from the Martial arts clubs... I hope they give the martial artists pain killers first.

WTF?

[RoboRay]

Someone call the NRA.

Re:WTF?

[Bazman]

The Nerf Rifle Association?

Re:WTF?

[RoboRay]

I was hoping somebody would take the bait on that. :p

Beware

[MacDork]

Anybody remember Silly String? Do they even still make that stuff?

Beware the silly string! You'll know what's about to happen when you see all those birthday candles!

BG Represent!

[Asahi Super Dry]

Heh, I went to BGSU. Apparently the zombie problems have only worsened in the 6 years since I graduated.

They are banned here too..

[cdw38]

They are also banned where I go to school - they play that game by tagging eachother now. Can't say I'm too disappointed not to have seen kids shooting nerf guns at eachother all around campus (instead they just run around like fools trying to tag eachother). Actually, not allowing nerf guns allows the rest of us to have some fun by straight charging at any group of people wearing the zombie headbands. Haha, they will disperse faster than any group you've ever seen.

Re:They are banned here too..

[AySz88]

The Cornell game used rolled-up socks as a replacement in lieu of nerf guns or ammo (though I'm pretty sure the nerf guns aren't banned). Unfortunately, the game is probably dead now - it used to be at http://www.zombiesattackithaca.com/ . For the curious, here's an article on it.

Nerf Guns??? What's Next???

[Skeetskeetskeet]

Hanging up neon cartoon characters flipping people the bird in Boston????

Also: How does this make the front page?

[cdw38]

One more thing - how the hell does this make the front page of /.? So what, a school doesn't need a bunch of kids running around shooting nerf guns at eachother. Imagine if you were visiting as a high school student and saw a bunch of kids in green bandanas running wildly from someone just launching nerf bullets (or whatever you'd call them) at them. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd think twice about attending (playing tag with green bandanas doesn't come off as quite as strange)...

Re:Also: How does this make the front page?

[Culture20]

As such a student, I'd think I had mistakenly entered an IT cubicle farm.

Re:Urban Dead cosplaying?

[aztektum]

Wait, wait, wait.... You mean Urban Dead the online game?? How the *hell* is that any better than people, oh I dunno GETTING OUT OF THEIR PARENTS BASEMENTS.

Glad to know there are bigger nerds than me who have little chance of diluting the gene pool.

They may have banned Nerf GUNS...

[UnCivil Liberty]

...but not Nerf CROTCHBAT!

Hit 'em right in the zombie junk!

Wow...

[Idiomatick]

Not to sound overly harsh but... CHILL THE FUCK OUT. Arresting people for having fun? Anyone who has had a childhood knows that nerfguns are BIG, NEON and shoot 3 inch long bright SPONGES. Danger of getting hit by a sponge vs outlawing a game that sounds pretty awesome. This is ridiculous, I hate watching universities cave to every little whim, taking absolutely no risks. One nice example, some schools aren't allowed to play anime at all, since they find it bothersome to verify whether or not every rule is being followed for ownership and playing. I wish people would show some backbone over this kind of thing. But then again, the police would probably have any students doing sit-ins forcibly removed http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/03/21/campus-protest.html?ref=rss ....

Re:Wow...

[jonadab]

> Anyone who has had a childhood knows that nerfguns are BIG, NEON and shoot 3 inch long bright SPONGES.

Actually, I think that's only if you've had a childhood very *recently*.

In the eighties Nerf made sponge footballs, and except for being made of foam they looked a lot like regular footballs. (Well, they did come in different colors.) I think they made soccer balls too. There were various kinds of toy guns, some of which looked more like real guns than others. The ones that shot suction-cup darts were the most realistic ones I saw as a kid, because they were made of _black_ plastic, as opposed to translucent red and green and orange and whatnot like water pistols. (Super Soakers, or other water guns larger than your hand, are another toy that did not exist in the eighties. I kid you not. So naturally we punched holes in the lids of milk jugs and plastic orange juice bottles and whatnot, or made water balloons, or used the garden hose.) We also had those guns that launch ping-pong balls, but they don't look *anything* like firearms, no matter what color you make them.

Re:Wow...

[Culture20]

Then came the entertech guns... I knew some older kids that spray painted their entertech barettas with chrome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99UPQEFSGVQ

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[Brian Gordon]

Playing with nerf guns seems like a pretty awesome alternative to the rather boring "get as many neurons as possible to fire in my pleasure center over the course of 4 years".

I know why they're banned

[tooler]

The only explanation is that campus administrators are zombies. The cheating bastards want to make sure nothing stops them from eating more brains.

Re:I know why they're banned

[lahvak]

The only explanation is that campus administrators are zombies.

Yes, but that's no news. I mean, doesn't everybody already know that? I didn't know NERF guns worked on them, though. I think I will get one for my office, and carry it with me to meetings.

Re:LARPers?

[lilomar]

Yes. A game. A Role Playing game perhaps? And look, It's Live Action too!

Now what would be a good acronym for Live Action Role Playing? Something to keep it from being confused with LARPing?

Hey, a local subject!

[nifboy]

Is it really that surprising that a campus that hosts some 20,000 students will have more than a few students that don't trust LARPers with anything even remotely resembling a gun? Especially considering: * They tend to travel in groups and wear matching armbands (interpreted as "gang-like" behavior) * The average LARPer is already something of a social deviant (not quite anime-convention-strange but strange enough) * Recent high-profile college shootings, which some people were personally affected by (or knows somebody who knows somebody who was) It's basically a recipe for raising suspicion and paranoia, especially in the first year when very few people on campus knew about the game until the police started arresting people.

Re:Hey, a local subject!

[kognate]

Another thing to remember is that Ohio is a Concealed Cary state. With all the high-profile shootings at schools (if I were an administrator at the school) I'd be more worried that the players would come up against someone who didn't know it was a game and was trying to Save The World.

Re:LARPers?

[Admiral Ag]

I can't believe no-one has mentioned the lightning bolt lightning bolt guy. Is this still slashdot?

OT: Zombie lifetime

[GodfatherofSoul]

Waaay off topic, but I'm a big zombie movie fan and I'm glad to see that the rules account for the often unanswered question, "So, how long does a zombie live?" Forty-eight hours according to the rule set I looked at.

University in the US?

[WoollyMittens]

Wait what? I read in the comments about campus cops, room inspections and complaining parents. It sounds to me like a cross between military school, prison and kindergarten. What business have parents complaining about 18 year old adults?

Re:University in the US?

[jonadab]

> What business have parents complaining about 18 year old adults?

In the US, most 18-year-olds are still financially dependent on their parents. He who pays the bills gets to make rules.

I'm not sure why the parents are complaining about Nerf of all things, but that's another matter.

Re:University in the US?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Yeah, about those room inspections: they only take place when we go home for breaks. The rest of the time, our RAs here leave us the hell alone.

Re:University in the US?

[Culture20]

In the U.S., children are so coddled that they don't mentally and emotionally mature until years after being physically separated from the parents (so, until about 21-23). Some of the kids ("adults") I see on my nearby campus are 19-20, but act like pre-teens.

Re:University in the US?

[Reziac]

Bah, here in SoCal, once mommy is done coddling 'em, the state takes over. Hence it's common to see 30 year olds who behave more like they're 12 to 16.

I feel safe...

[laughingcoyote]

I'm very glad to know that American citizens are being protected from this terrible danger. I've heard, in fact, that more American children have been attacked by Nerf weapons than by all other types of weapons combined. We're taking a good first step toward eliminating this terrible menace.

If we must all be turned into zombies, well, that's just the price we pay for safety. Besides, we'll be completely safe that way, nothing hurts a zombie! What's to lose?

So...

[mrmeval]

Is it the same penelty to carry NERF as it is to carry Colt?

Re:So...

[Mishra100]

You know, I think this is VERY good post and would like to recommend that it get modded up.

If students are to be detained because they were seemingly carrying weapons, then they need to be punished for the crime. If you were carrying around a fake but very real looking hand grenade threatening people with it, then you need to be punished according to the law you broke.

If you are carrying around a freaking NERF gun and your violation doesn't relate to the charges of the crime you are being suspected of, then they shouldn't be able to just stamp something on it (disorderly conduct) and send you off. They obviously didn't break the real law so they didn't do anything wrong!!

Re:Urban Dead cosplaying?

[fermion]

How else can a geek hope to get embroiled in a international conspiracy which takes him to Germany, where he loses his virginity to a women who is only using him, and, though sheer heroics, proves himself to the woman he lost his virginity to as more than a convenient pigeon. Take away the nerf guns, and you condemn an entire generation to their parents basement, alone and loveless.

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[laejoh]

Uh, try the physics lab next door.

Sigh.....

[IHC Navistar]

If I was the Judge that had to deal with these citations, I would give each and every issuing officer a good 'ol fashioned judicial beat-down.

Nerf guns are just like firearms and just as dangerous:

Nerf Guns:

Brightly colorful.
Use compressed air.
Don't resemble, even remotely, real guns.
Shoot big yellow sponges.
Sponge "bullets" bounce off of their target and usually make the target laugh.
Make funny noises when fired.
The target either never falls down, or gets right back up immediately, provided he or she didn't fall of a cliff.
Can be bought at any Toy's 'R' Us by a 10 year old.
Cost as cheap as $10.

Real guns:

Black or chrome plated.
Use smokeless powder.
Resemble reals guns because they are real guns.
Shoot lead or copper-jacketed bullets.
Lead bullets penetrate the target and usually make the target scream in pain.
Makes a loud bang when fired.
The person who was shot doesn't usually get up.
Can only be bought by someone who is 21 or older at licensed dealerships, plus State and Federal background checks.
Usually cost between $500-$2999 (hardly milk money)

So, yeah, I can understand how the police became easily confused between the two. Someone should give Barney Fife and his fellow deputies a public commendation for protecting safe fun-loving people from themselves.

I was looking through my college's regulations to see if they had rules prohibiting Nerf Guns and came across the following:

"Weapons and Explosives
1. Possession, use, or sale of any incendiary, explosive, firearm, or destructive device is not permitted. At no time will live ammunition of any type be permitted in or on university premises.
2. Any weapon including, but not limited to guns (i.e., air soft guns, BB/pellet guns, paintball guns, potato guns, pistols, revolvers, firearms, etc.), knives, and any items that are a reasonable facsimile of such weapons are prohibited.
3. Ammunition or explosives (including fireworks) of any kind are prohibited.
4. Failure to report to campus security and/or residence hall personnel the presence of an unlawful weapon, explosive or incendiary device, when the presence of such weapon or device is known or reasonably suspected is a violation of the rules and regulations of the University.
5. Reporting the false presence of an unlawful weapon, explosive or incendiary device with the intent to mislead or deceive is prohibited."

It doesn't list Nerf guns, but states that guns "that are a "resonable facsimile of such weapons are prohibited". This allows anybody with half a brain to successfully argue that Nerf guns are not a "resonable facsimile".

Interestingly enough, the preceeding section is of the following:

"Projectiles
1. Throwing, dropping, or projecting objects from any residence structure, including but not limited to self, keys, bodily fluids, and trash is strictly prohibited. In addition, throwing objects or playing sports in community courtyards is not permitted without permission from the Community Director of that area. Individuals and/or residential communities may be held financially responsible for repairing damages, painting costs, and general maintenance related to projectiles."

So, technically, that means it is against the rules to play flag football, catch, pickle, or Frisbee without getting permission. Man, we didn't even have to ask the Yard Duty for permission to do these things in Elementary school. I guess I should pack up my lawn darts.

Re:Sigh.....

[melstav]

I guess I should pack up my lawn darts.

Actually, probably.

They're illegal to sell in the U.S.

Depending on where you are and the ridiculousness of the way the local law is written, even being seen using them may result in an arrest/fines, or their confiscation.

Too many asshats throwing the darts when it's not clear downrange, and getting the dart embedded in their buddy's chest. The fact that both parties were usually drunk at the time was a relative non-consideration.

Re:They're not being unreasonable

[DKlineburg]

I don't know. It is all fun and games untill you break a leg and shoot yourself so you don't become a zombie. Doesn't that happen in all the movies? It must be real.

Help me out here

[Techman83]

While in the meeting, the group was told the game was in danger of being canceled due to the number of calls the University received last semester from concerned parents. Can I pose a question, now in Australia University mean mostly people who have finished Secondary School and are generally 18 and over. Why the hell are parents calling and complaining, aren't we supposed to be merging into an adult and independent life at this point in time???

So is my thinking wrong?? Either way it sounds like a damn fun game and I sometimes feel cheated by not going to Uni (Traineeship, experience and courses make up my resume, uni would have been a waste as far as employability goes, but it sounds like a shit load of fun!)

Re:Help me out here

[cvd6262]

As a professor, I can tell you that USian parents hover over their kids long after high school. It may stem from an unhealthy overprotectiveness, or it might be that they are simply protecting their investment: Most college students receive thousands of dollars from their parents each year. Also, if the kids drop out, the parents will feel obligated to house and feed them until they get back on their feet.

So, yes, as screwed up as it is, parents call teachers and administrators (even deans) to voice their concerns. And it's not just for safety issues. My department chair routinely gets calls from parents whose children did poorly in a class, or were not accepted into their major of choice, etc.

Re:Help me out here

[microTodd]

Let me tell you a quick story from my U.S. university days, and maybe it will help you understand.

When I was 18, and visiting a university campus getting ready to start, my father came along with me. Along with the group were several other 18-year-olds and their parents. During the tour, the guide mentioned that report cards were sent to the students' addresses (not the parents), and also that the students' cafeteria account was not accessible by the parents. Several of the parents expressed concern and surprise that they would not be able to monitor their childrens' grades or spending. The tour guide said, "Well, they are 18 and adults after all." I remember one or two parents actually getting angry that they would have to ASK THEIR CHILDREN to see their report cards.

My father chuckled at this, and later on he said to me, "Son, you're 18 now, so this is YOUR life. Your report grades, your money, your responsibility. Don't screw it up and then come whining to me."

Obviously, my father's attitude is in the minority nowadays.

Re:Help me out here

[barzok]

While you're at college/university in the US, you're typically still covered under your parents' health insurance, so they end up paying.

Cries of "Why the hell are you playing GAMES while I'm paying $30K/year for you to be there to get an education?"

Plus the whole helicopter parenting situation.

Re:Help me out here

[NiteShaed]

The way you butcher the language with the irritating pseudo-word "USian", I certainly hope you're not a professor of English. I can hardly wait until that little piece of P.C. garbage fades from use. Unless of course you're referring to people from the region known as "Usia", in which case you have my apologies.

Re:Help me out here

[Culture20]

In the U.S., children are so coddled that they don't mentally and emotionally mature until years after being physically separated from the parents (so, until about 21-23). Some of the kids ("adults") I see on my nearby campus are 19-20, but act like pre-teens.

Re:Help me out here

[Valdrax]

USian isn't politically correct. Isn't it? It's primarily used as an alternative to "American" to reflect that many people outside of the US live in the Americas and feel that they have just as much right to be called "Americans" as people from the US. (i.e. That it would be just as ridiculous to only reserve the use of the word "European" for people who live in E.U. states.)

Thus, it's politically correct speech, with all the connotations of oversensitivity and the resulting pushback that comes from any other similar term.

Re:Help me out here

[Techman83]

Ahh now I understand. Here only the very well off children get their tuition paid for, generally most students pay for it themselves by working or with a HECS/HELP Loan, which essentially is a interest free loan from the government which you have to pay back once you earn more than $38k. Information here and repayment schedule here

I'm also pretty certain the Uni's are fairly heavily subsidised, as depending on the course it is usually between $3k and $8k per semester I think (no time to research this bit, just from what I've heard from friends), so usually only end up with a smaller debt than a decent car, that if you only earn 40k per year, only $1600 will have to be paid per annum and it's taken out pre-tax!

The irony

[Martian_Kyo]

on the other side of cyberspace, COMPUTER roleplayers (now there's an oxymoron) are hoping for the removal of nerfs in their games.

Sounds like a good plan

[Moraelin]

Ah, sooo, that was their vulnerability. Before unleashing my hordes genetically-engineered mutant zombies TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD, I must first get all governments to ban Nerf guns. I won't be foiled again.

*cackles manically in his labcoat*

There is NO justification for banning nerf guns.

[Werthless5]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?

You can't possibly mistake a nerf gun for a real gun. Real guns don't have giant nerf darts sticking out of them! Nerf guns look RIDICULOUS, they're brightly colored and shoot big pieces of foam! You'd have to be an idiot to not see the difference! LOOK OUT, THAT PIECE OF FOAM MIGHT HIT YOU IN THE EYE IF THE WIND IS JUST RIGHT AND IF YOU STAND REALLY STILL!

I could see an especially lame campus banning water pistols or toy pistols (on the assumption that they look too real perhaps). Yes, it is pretty crazy, but I could see a bunch of soccer moms getting together and complaining about it. Sure, keep the water pistols out of the elementary schools, whatever. But there can't possibly be ANY justification for banning nerf guns. NONE

I recall a student at the U of Arizona was expelled for sharpening some chop sticks and sticking them to his wall in the honors dorm. THEY'RE CHOP STICKS, and he got EXPELLED. Who the hell arbitrated that case?! "Well you're an honors student spending your first year of college in the dorm. You sharpened some chop sticks and used fun tak to stick them to the wall. Seems like a pretty open and shut case to me, EXPLUSION!" Later that night, that administrator went home and told his wife about it, and that's when she realized that she's married to a completely moron and got a divorce. Okay, so I made that last part up, but it's still stupid.

The people who need or enforce a nerf gun ban are insane. What they need is a mental institution. You bring that case before any shrink and they'll recommend a long stay at a mental health clinic. Even a 10 year-old could correctly diagnosis these people as NUTS.

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[Chapter80]

Around here BGSU is known as the STD capital...

That rumor's been around since 1985. Don't believe it. Read this

Probably the safest and easiest place to get some is where everyone else is paranoid over the rumors. Just remember to wear a raincoat.

Overreaction

[Kenoli]

It's kind of shocking that someone could mistake one of those things for anything besides a toy, but apparently it happened. Some paranoid person decided it would be a better idea to call the cops than just ask the kids to stop carrying them around.

Oh come on....

[raehl]

hey, they're up and running around. they're doing their part to fight the looming obesity crisis, in addition to training to combat the looming undead crisis.

They're running from ZOMBIES! The slowest of the undead by far. And they're even downing the zombies with guns! If this was REALLY fitness-oriented, they'd instead be taking on something a little faster, like vampires. Or they at least could be felling the zombies with traditional anti-zombie weapons like chain saws instead of projectile weapons.

This is clearly set up to minimize physical effort, not promote it.

Re:Oh come on....

[ajcham]

Do Nerf make chainsaws? Does it come with a Nerf hockey mask?

Re:Oh come on....

[m50d]

If you've ever played such a thing you'd realise that's bullshit. vs. zombies is probably to up the strategy and make running speed less important, but it doesn't by any means remove the usefulness of running as fast as you damn well can. For anyone taking it seriously, it'll be as physical as anything you could come up with.

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[uvajed_ekil]

so why are all the geeks there getting their jollys playing with nerf guns outside?

Because they are just plain nerds, not geeks.

Re:What do we want? BRRRAAAIIIIIINNNSSSS!!!!

[demallien2]

Exactly

I just want to know who was the genius zombie that decided to attack the University admin block first. Getting nerf guns banned = sure sign that the zombies are gaming the system :-)

Nerf Doors

[dintech]

I think she's gonna need some Nerf Stairs too.

Re:There is NO justification for banning nerf guns

[jonadab]

> Sure, keep the water pistols out of the elementary
> schools, whatever. But there can't possibly be ANY
> justification for banning nerf guns. NONE

Actually, in elementary school you would ban them for sure, at least from class, because they'd be a terrible distraction. If you've got a place where the kids can store things out of the way during class (e.g., lockers), you could allow them for recess only, but otherwise it's not worth the hassle, just tell the kids to leave them home. It's not like they don't have several hours of daylight left to play in after school lets out.

(Note that I'm not saying you'd never let the kids play. But something like a Nerf gun, just by being present, actively prevents anyone from paying attention in class, ever. You can make them stop shooting and put it down, but everyone in the room is still going to be looking at and thinking about the stupid thing. This is what I mean by "terrible distraction".)

Of course that reasoning doesn't apply to banning something from an entire college campus.

Silly String aka Mine Detection Apparatus

[Clovis42]

Anybody remember Silly String? Do they even still make that stuff?

The army does. I read several years ago that silly string was being used in Iraq. The lightweight strings, and the propulsion device, are ideal for detecting tripwires.

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[redxxx]

I'm shocked, shocked, to hear it implied that there are LARPers who aren't getting any.

one more

[Comboman]

"You can have my Nerf gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." - Charlton Heston

H. Vs. Zombies

[LordHatrus]

We have our own Human vs. Zombies games here at Rochester Institute of Technology. We had to stop last semester due to (I think) someone falling over while running away in the game, and ending up needing stitches when his head and the pavement met. I guess it's not really the nerf guns that do the damage ... ?

In other news ...

[Zero__Kelvin]

In an entirely unrelated story, Bowling Green State University has canceled their Civics 101 class, as they were unable to find a professor with the requisite knowledge to teach it.

Remember Gotcha!

[aplusjimages]

Whatever happened to the days of using paintball guns that looked like real guns?

Re:I have a funny story about a similar Nerf game.

[Mr. Underbridge]

called Assassin that some frats and/or dorms play at UIUC. A guy locked himself in his room to avoid an assassin, who then camped right outside his door, ready to strike the instant he opened the door. Supposedly, the guy really had to do #2, but rather than open the door and lose, he crapped out his 2nd floor window.

I'd have just told the guy that I'm crapping on the first thing I see when I come out of the room. This guy failed to realize that he had the better weapon at the time.

zombeee

[JohaunaRei]

zombeeeee favzzz goooood arrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Oh the HORROR!

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Pirrung said all players could clearly be identified by each other because they each wore orange bandanas. "

These are clearly HVZ gang colours! And this particular gang is so brazen that they flash their weapons in plain sight of campus security sans fear of recourse! Won't somebody think of the children! Oh, the HORROR!

What??? You talking about???

[PortHaven]

Responsibility or something?

Raising a child to be responsible?

You stupid or something...??? Don't you know you're supposed to let your TV raise your child. So you can blame everything bad that your child does on some TV show, video game, or anything else you can think of - enabling you to be sue happy and blame someone else for the fact the failure to teach responsibility to your child.

What you're advocating will make your child safer, smarter, and more responsible. Leaving you with no one to sue but yourself.

Responsibility = bad...puts lawyers out of business!

Re:What??? You talking about???

[gabrielex]

This is so retarded!!!
Why in USA so many people own guns?
They're not toys and they're totally UNNEEDED!!!
And even worse, parents letting their kids play with guns,
surveilled or not, there's no safe gun, beside MAYBE toy ones.
A gun should be considered always as loaded even when it's not.
Have you ever thought about the reason why USA is the country with
more killings compared to ALL the other countries in the world?
Easy answer...guns are so common and so easy to retrieve!
Guns should be owned only by police and military forces and
in very special cases by people who really need em, that have
a very well certified ability to use em, with certified mental stability tests
and that are risking their life everyday (to justify the owning of a gun).

In all the other cases (90% IMHO) guns and any other kind of firearm should
not be owned by the common people: MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact.

Now just think of it.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[Moofie]

Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.

Also, please compare gun ownership in the US to Switzerland. Yes, there is a lot of violence in the US, and that's terrible. Outlawing guns will not solve that problem.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[gabrielex]

Outlawing Nerf guns is stupid, you should let people have some fun. Outlawing real guns isn't stupid at all, the fact is that after all these years people in US are sorta acquainted to this situation, hence it's difficult. But I think it's still not stupid. All this together with terrorims is leading US and bit by bit also the other countries in the World towards a state of police. Willing to use a quote from the U.S. president Benjamin Franklyn: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Well this is exactly what is happening now.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[alexgieg]

Have you ever thought about the reason why USA is the country with more killings compared to ALL the other countries in the world? Easy answer...guns are so common and so easy to retrieve!

Wrong, and wrong. I live in Brazil, and while we have roughly half the population of USA, we have twice the number of deaths by firearms, actually nearing the numbers you see on news about Iraq, and that without an actual war going on. And do you know what's the most interesting thing about this? It's that, here, gun ownership is outlawed exactly in the way you think it should be on USA:

Guns should be owned only by police and military forces and in very special cases by people who really need em, that have a very well certified ability to use em, with certified mental stability tests and that are risking their life everyday (to justify the owning of a gun).

So, why do you think we have that much deaths by firearms here? If you don't mind, I'll answer: it's because that old adage, that when guns are outlawed only the outlaws have guns, is literally true. This is exactly what happens here. Every year Brazilian criminals become more and more violent. And why? Because they know that no matter who they target, that person will be an unarmed, easy prey. That any house they enter will be an unarmed, easy to rob house. That any person they kidnap, or any woman they rape, will be an unarmed, hopeless victim.

As for myself, I walk around armed with the deadliest small army knife I managed to find. Thanks God knives still aren't forbidden, and thus I have some small prospect of getting away alive if (when) attacked by a criminal intent on killing me no matter what. But, alas, our Congress is already looking into ways to forbid knife-carrying too. Once that law is approved I guess I'll have to start walking around with a telescopic baton. Or, once those are forbidden, a wood stick...

So, do you want to know what USA will become one guns are outlawed? Come see for yourself. And take care with your luggage.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[spxero]

Outlawing Nerf guns is stupid. And outlawing real guns is stupid. Putting a ban on guns only puts a ban on good people owning guns, not bad people. Just as there is no bug-free code, there is no bug-free ban on guns. And giving up an essential liberty of protecting oneself for the perceived safety of a gun-free world is almost exactly what Ben Franklin was talking about.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[Pantero Blanco]

MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact.

If this is the reasoning behind the rest of your argument, it's meaningless.

MORE ALCOHOL = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact.
MORE CARS = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact.
MORE CHILDREN = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact.
MORE BLACKS = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[Pantero Blanco]

Willing to use a quote from the U.S. president Benjamin Franklyn: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Not only does your quote conflict with your original argument, but Benjamin Franklin was never president.

I don't think I want to take advice from you.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[gabrielex]

So tell me why all this doesn't happen in Europe... This is why police exists. I didn't say totally banning the weapons, but having a waaaaaaaay more strict regulation about it and surely not letting kids hand guns.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[gabrielex]

Yes sadly good people never become president. I wrote president cuz I was gonna write something else before and forgot to remove that. It doesn't conflict at all with what I said, US is selling your privacy and your freedom thinking this way you'll fight terrorism...well this is not the good way to fight it, it's only a way to auto-inflict other damange. What did you get from it? That now everyone is controlled, spied and you can't behave naturally as u used to before Sept 11th. So now it's not only terrorism, but also the politics.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[Fear the Clam]

So, why do you think we have that much deaths by firearms here?

Because folks won't stop playing The Girl from Ipanema?

Re:What??? You talking about???

[default luser]

So tell me why all this doesn't happen in Europe...

Because, like rail mass-transit, you get more police effectiveness for your dollar when you have a population density FIVE TO TEN TIMES LARGER than Brazil. Also, the people of Brazil aren't fat and happy like the west, because a good chunk of them live in huts below the poverty line, so you get worse gang violence than you'll ever see in the first-world. Police can only do so much when the population is restless and spread-out.

And let me make one thing clear: ultra-strict gun regulation is not a common theme in Europe. This is mostly restricted to the UK (nanny police state, complete with closed-circuit TV to watch the fun), and Germany (yes, the entire country is still embarassed about Hitler, even today). In France, Switzerand, Finland, you name it, gun ownership is high; a lot of EU countries even allow handguns for home defense/target practice use.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[Ed_Pinkley]

Once that law is approved I guess I'll have to start walking around with a telescopic baton. Or, once those are forbidden, a wood stick...

Just in case you are interested, here's a guy with the same idea:

http://www.gojushorei.com/weapons.htm
Learn to defend yourself with a legal object (say a cane, or a small knife) and carry it with you at all times. I like it. It is a pretty nice system when combined with another martial art. (One you can get to and practice in your country.)

Unfortunately, I just found out that in my state (in the USA), according to case law, the pocket knife I carry is considered a deadly weapon because it is locking and/or can be opened with one hand. Things that I consider safety and/or convenience features. (sigh)

Ed

Re:What??? You talking about???

[tylernt]

they're totally UNNEEDED!!!

Tell that to the millions of law-abiding citizens, who each year successfully use guns to defend themselves from the darker side of society:

http://www.google.com/search?q=defensive+gun+uses

Re:What??? You talking about???

[Sky Cry]

old adage, that when guns are outlawed only the outlaws have guns, is literally true

So you're actually comparing a completely different country in a very specific situation, specific people, mindset, education, development, etc. And you're blaming the difference in the number of deaths on a single law? My bet (which is likely worth as much as yours) is that outlawing guns actually helps, but all the other influences outweigh it.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[default luser]

I didn't understand who has a population density 5 to 10 times larger than Brazil

You do. So does the UK, and Germany. Specifically, 10 times that of Brazil.

Italy: 197 people per square km, Gini = 36
UK: 246 people per square km, Gini = 34
Germany: 230 people per square km, Gini = 28.3
United States: 31 people per square km, Gini = 47.0
Brazil: 22 people per square km, Gini = 56.6

I understand that poverty can often sadly lead to crime.

And just to give you an idea of how poor the poorest people in Brazil are, I've provided Gini numbers for each country. These numbers are a measure between the poorest and richest residents of a country, where higher numbers indicate a larger divide. You will notice that in Europe, where the poor are not all that poor and the population density is high, crime is not a problem. In the US, things get worse, but are not completely out-of-hand. In Brazil, the situation is a nightmare compared to Europe.

About Germany I think people should always remember which horrible things the nazism did but should stop blaming german people that actually live in Germany and have nothing to do with it, because let's face it now it's history and most of the people of that historic period are dead or very old now.

The rest of the world stopped blaming the Germans years ago, including myself. The only people blaming the Germans are the Germans themselves. I mean, really, what other free democracy in the world makes it illegal to form a group or have a webpage promoting hate speech or more specifically, neo-Nazis? They're completely stuck in the past.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[Pantero Blanco]

It doesn't conflict at all with what I said, US is selling your privacy and your freedom thinking this way you'll fight terrorism...

It conflicts with your original point arguing against gun ownership. You want people to give up that freedom in order for you to feel safer, and then you turn around and blast people who are giving up a different freedom in order to feel safe.

Both types of people are foolishly making it easier for their enemies to control them.

Re:What??? You talking about???

[PortHaven]

"Why people in the USA own guns, and why they're needed!"

- We believe in Equality. A gun gives a 4'5" petite woman an even chance against a 6'4" 285lb male armed with a knife.

- Because calling 911 often does not receive a timely enough response to keep you safe.

- Because America was born out of revolution. Without our guns we'd have continued being oppressed by the British, as would much of the world.

***

"A gun should be considered always as loaded even when it's not."

Yes it should...

***

"Have you ever thought about the reason why USA is the country with
more killings compared to ALL the other countries in the world?"

Yes, I have...and it has nothing to do with guns. In fact, the states in the USA with the most stringent gun laws have the highest murder rates. Those with the most relaxed gun laws have the lowest.

The reason is culture and a lack of responsibility. As well as oppression in some cases.

***

"Guns should be owned only by police and military forces"

So Americans can be victimized by their government as happens in China, Sudan, Soviet Union, Tibet and numerous other countries where police and military are the only ones armed.

***

"In all the other cases (90% IMHO) guns and any other kind of firearm should
not be owned by the common people: "

You can try to take my gun away....you'll end up wishing you had one if you try. Oh, and look at Australia and Great Britain. Two nations with stringent gun laws and confiscation. G.B. has major increase in stabbing deaths. Australia has increased crime in the rural areas.

***

"MORE GUNS = MORE DEATHS, it's a matter of a fact."

Actually, it's not. In fact, you can compare two Virginia college shootings. One ended with dozens dead the other did not. Why? Because two students had weapons and subdued the perpetrators.

***

"All countries with strict gun controls are safer than the US (at least when it comes to diying of a gun related injury)."

Really, Mexico = strict gun laws. Also equals far more violence with or without guns than the U.S.

***

"In the US the gun lobby has managed to convince a majority that having a gun is a right."

Any right is a duty. Sadly, we've grown into a society that wants "priveledges" without the prerequisite responsibility. And that is where the true problem lies - and not in a handgun.

However, the U.S. is founded upon a document that expresses certain rights. Not as granted by the document, but merely recognized as inherent.

Why "duties" are not expressed in said document? Because government is quite adept at passing laws and declaring the duties and limitations of it's citizens.

Re:I have a funny story about a similar Nerf game.

[Zero__Kelvin]

Good thing he didn't go to Bowling Green U. He'd have been arrested for dropping bombs!

Re:Fear of Guns

[HikingStick]

I think the greater concerns for the college are that such live action games are disruptive on campus, and that some player or injured bystander will eventually file a claim against the college's insurance policy (or even sue).

Of course, if planned well and played with a pre-established set of rules, such risks may be kept to a minimum.

In high school, we used to play KILLER (some people know it as "Hit Man" or "Assassin") where everyone who signed up was given a target card and was then required to take out the opponent using any legal (as defined by the game rules) weapon. When you completed a kill, you collected your victim's target card and moved on. My favorites were the carboard/plastic knife, the water gun (easy to prove the other was hit), and the grenade (a water balloon). We had specific rules as to where you could or could not play (e.g., not in classrooms, not in places of worship, not in cemetaries), and had recommendations for play in the broader community. Whipping out a realistic looking plastic pellet gun in the middle of a crowded supermarket was never a good idea (especially at a time when there were no laws requiring that toy guns have orange barrel ends--one friend had a water gun that was a perfect replica of a baretta).

One of my favorite memories was a drive-by watergun attack on a target in the parking lot of a local grocery (in the days when supersoakers were new and uncommon). My least favorite memory? Being judged dead after my assassin dropped a feather pillow on me from above--a pillow with "200 lb. block" written on it with a marker!

Re:I have a funny story about a similar Nerf game.

[Fieryphoenix]

This whole thing reminds me of the old Steve Jackson game Killer.

It also reminds me that I lost my copy in a flood 12 years ago and how bitter that made me feel.

And then it motivated me to see if I could find anything related on the net, and I see it's back in print.

http://www.sjgames.com/killer/

Thanks Slashdot! I feel a lot better!

Replace "gun" with "Internet pr0n"

[giafly]

... to see how mindbogglingly stupid this advice is. Both are dangerous for kids after all.

The fact is that children prefer playing with familiar objects, compared to things that are "new and strange". That's why they mostly have a favorite doll or teddy bear. That's why they prefer branded toys from films and TV, compared to no-name toys, though both are produced in the same Chinese factory. That's why they want the same toys as their friends.

The worst thing you could do is make guns familiar. I hope you lock away dangerous things like bleach or medicines. You should take no less care with weapons.

Re:Replace "gun" with "Internet pr0n"

[bkr1_2k]

While I agree children prefer familiar things to new ones, I don't think the GP ever advocating not locking guns away. What the post did advocate was teaching children about guns if you have them in the house. I agree, I wouldn't choose to teach them exactly as the GP suggests, but having them fire weapons at a young age, even if it's at a watermelon (very effective example by the way) or tin can will most assuredly give them a much bigger fear of guns and better understanding of them than just telling them they're dangerous.

Re:There is NO justification for banning nerf guns

[Cro Magnon]

Of course that reasoning doesn't apply to banning something from an entire college campus.

Actually, it does. Only, instead of distracting 10 year old students, they would distract double-digit IQ administrators.

It's all funny until someone loses an eye!

[elrous0]

My aunt Louise ended up in the hospital with bruises all over her, a black eye, and a couple of broken ribs after she and my uncle Gene were just playing around one day, just having fun and with a nerf bat.

Well, that's what she told the cops, anyway.

Lazertag?

[otis wildflower]

Maybe switching from Nerf to Lasertag? A real-life Halo zombie map? Just make sure they're not high-powered...

Hmmm....

[ubuwalker31]

Scruffy Looking Nerf Herders?

Re:Hmmm....

[exploder]

"News for nerds, stuff that...er...news for nerds!"

Dubious

[argStyopa]

While I understand the compelling reasons a police officer might want to react quickly to a perceived threat (his/her life is in danger), one would expect that they perform at a least a minimum level of target scrutiny before pulling the trigger. For example, enough to review whether that's a big, colorful, toy NERF gun vs. a credible-looking real one.

Yes, that means the bad guys get the first shot. That's un-f'ing-avoidable in some cases. We simply cannot have a society where the 'peacekeepers' are able to reflexively draw & shoot at any potential threat.

It's like hunters that shoot cows (or dogs, or people) by accident when hunting deer. If they can't see the target well enough to identify that it's not a deer, they shouldn't be SHOOTING. If a cop can't be clear enough about their target to know that it's not a toy gun (or a harmless civilian, or a child, or whatever) THEY SHOULDN'T BE PULLING THE TRIGGER. It sometimes sucks to be the good guy, but dammit that's their job.

How do you explain guns to the soccer moms?

[Xaedalus]

For the record, I agree with you on gun control. But to play devil's advocate, how do you justify owning a gun and having children in a house to, let's say, a 39 year old mother of two from Peoria, Ill? Said woman is from a family that grew up in the suburbs, never owned guns. She's liberal, against the war in Iraq, and is totally focused on her kids. The only time she's ever experienced the gun issue is when someone with an awful lot of anger stands up and shouts about his right to carry fire arms (note, she's focusing on the anger here), and then she reads about some kid from a family pretty similar to hers (she's getting this from the media, so she's not getting the full story) getting hold of gun and accidentally killing himself? Or she hears about troubled kids from another suburban family getting a gun and going out and shooting up a school? Then she looks at Canada and England (which she doesn't know much about) and sees that they never have school shootings there? I'm making this persona up, of course, but I'm doing it to push a point here. The people who do not believe in the second amendment don't want the government to take control of their lives. It's that they literally do not see any reason for people to have guns in this day and age. We live in a largely peaceful society (despite the attempts of the media to convince us otherwise) and so most people have never been put in a position where a gun was needed (I myself have never been in a real fight). Chances are, they will go the rest of their lives without ever encountering a need for a gun. So how do you convince them that guns are necessary, when nothing in their lives or experience leads them to believe so? And when the evidence that they see leads them to conclude otherwise? I'm not trying to disrepect anyone here, I'm trying to promote some understanding of the common gun-ban favoring opponent.

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[LoofWaffle]

I'm kinda partial to BSGU:ZombieMod

Not really

[Moraelin]

Actually, that's not what the text of that amendment says. It says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Way I read it, it says that a militia (well regulated, no less!) is necessary for defense. You know, in case the British attacked you from the north again (Canada was still a British colony), or Spain from the South, or God knows what else, they wanted to have a large pool of armed men to defend against those. That's it. Whatever else those founding fathers might have had in mind, they sure didn't write that.

How much that militia is still needed, or even useful at all, in an age of tanks, airplanes, and nuclear missiles... well, I'll leave that for another time. For now, let's just say: learn what that constitutions and those amendments actually say, before waving them around.

Re:Not really

[retzkek]

Way I read it, it says that a militia (well regulated, no less!) is necessary for defense. You know, in case the British attacked you from the north again... Whatever else those founding fathers might have had in mind, they sure didn't write that... ... in the Constitution (in any case, your interpretation of the Second Amendment as written is by no means an authoritative one, and flies in the face of established jurisprudence). There is a large body of text that exists from that period, written by the very people who wrote, debated, and ratified the Constitution, that gives valuable insight into their thinking. The error in your thinking is that you assume that a country (read: the people) only need defend itself against foreign threats. The Second Amendment was introduced because the Constitution allows Congress to form a standing army, which many people were concerned would be used to pacify and control the people.

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

(Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States

(Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

(Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

For now, let's just say: learn what that constitutions and those amendments actually say, before waving them around. And then, learn what they actually mean.

Re:Not really

[Reziac]

Here is what most people don't grok about the 2nd Amendment:

It is NOT intended so that We the People can defend ourselves against an invader (tho that could be a useful side consequence).

It is intended so that if necessary, we can defend ourselves against OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, if necessary by staging an armed revolt.

Remember that these people had just come out of a war for independence from an abusive gov't, and the whole concept was still fresh in their minds.

Apparently Americans today have entirely forgotten it... yet look at all the whining about gov't abuses (which objectively, are at presently rather worse than the British Crown's abuses on the Colonies).

Re:Not really

[mog007]

Why is the Second Amendment the only amendment that people interpret to have just one piece to it?

It provides two things: It allows the individual states to maintain a militia, and to keep that militia useful and protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government, it recognizes the right of all citizens to have arms.

Re:Not really

[Reziac]

You are correct as to what the Second Amendment protects; ie. more than just the individual right to arms. I was just pointing out that the Founders' =primary= reason for these protections was not what most people nowadays believe.

Facsimile of a weapon?

[sherriw]

Someone show me a real world weapon that looks like those nerf guns? How in the hell are they considered a facsimile?

Re:Facsimile of a weapon?

[GreyyGuy]

Have you seen some of the Nerf mods? There are some that look realistic-ish. The article said that one was painted black, so I can how a modified gun might look realistic from a distance. Doesn't change this from being an over-reaction for the other Nerf guns, but I can see it in the one circumstance.

Re:Facsimile of a weapon?

[sherriw]

I'm less irate about the guy who had the painted black one getting a fine. But the bright orange and green toys? Come on. I would take this to court and challenge the police to prove that my lime-green, striped, roundy toy with the word NERF on the side is a facimile. And if so, arrest every 9 year old kid and give him a fine too. Prove it! This is crazy.

what?!

[GregNorc]

That's ridiculous. At my college there was an emergency door that had an alarm in the dorm. It had to be their to provide access to the emergency exit, due to coding issues, but is not meant to be used normally as it separates the living area from the administrative. It emits a high pitched alarm for about 2 minutes if you go through it.

So I got a nerf gun and started blasting people who went through the door since my room was a few doors down. It worked wonders. Someone eventually called security, who laughed in their face.

Banning Nerf

[knghtrider]

What's next? Banning SCA http://www.sca.org/ Weapons on campus? Those can do Wayyyyyyyy more damage.

Of course, in my day, we played Highlander (There can be only one) Ever have a sword fight in the service corridor of a mall, or in the center of town..nothing was off limits...we were a bit 'nutz' back then; but we were also LARP players.

Undead Discrimination

[Dareth]

While some people claim the undead just hate the living and need to be nerfed and dismembered, this is not always the case.

Many undead were just done with the rat race we call "life" and them BAM! (Apologies to Emeril) they are the walking dead. Some abuse this status and give the others a bad name. Most are just glad to have this second chance and just want to be left alone.

So enters the arrogant nerf toting lifers (griefers) who won't leave these poor undead alone. They just want to nerf them left and right indiscriminately. This is so wrong. The undead could be reintegrated into society. They could be used in slaughter houses to find cows with Mad Cow Disease, swiss brains are a zombie delicacy after all.

Well enough of a rant, time to go hide from the Evil Day Star.

Re:I have a funny story about a similar Nerf game.

[nevergleam]

My dorm-mates and I played a couple rounds of Assassin at university too. It was a lot of fun, so we were very disappointed when the university banned the rolled up socks we used as weapons because they looked too much like hand grenades.

Re:Title revision suggestion:

[Eli Gottlieb]

Ewww... too stringy! Brrrraaaiiinnnsnsss!

Re:LARPers?

[mamono]

That is the first thing I thought of and the only reason for reading the comments for this one.

Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!

Sleep....

Re:Not worth my time, but

[What me a Coward]

Huh??!@?? WTF!!! Are you seriously trying to tell us that a cop or anybody for that matter can't immediately tell the difference between a real gun even one painted orange and a large oversized ridicules gun shooting nerf darts???

    Police officers go through regular training to keep their instincts sharp and have to pass a shooting range test with popup dummy targets as well as popup non targets were they have only a split second to decide between hostile and innocent. This is to train them to make thoughts kinds of snap judgments and prevent them from making the kind of dumbass mistake you are trying to imply in your analogy. Their is always the little kid popup with the toy laser gun or toy pistol and if the trainee pops him he's not going to graduate not with that kind of bad judgment.

    Plus add to that the cop isn't supposed to fire his weapon at all not without at least uttering the words freeze police! or holt or I'll shoot!! That is supposed to not only give the cop extra time to make a good call if needed but to also inform the suspected purp that he is confronting a cop and his next action could cost him his life if he doesn't make the right choice here. Basically freeze/halt and do whatever the man with the badge and gun tells him to do. Any cop that would shoot an individual without at least giving warning would loose his badge real quick, I.A. (Internal Affairs ) would see to that.

    As a police officer theirs no room for error they must be on their toes sharp and able to the snap judgment in such situations or they have no business wearing that badge at all!

My dad was a soldier.

[jotaeleemeese]

He knew everything there is to know about guns, arms, riffles and many other artifacts created with the only purpose of killing people.

He would have slapped you for being so stupid.

You can't compare the US to Switzerland.

[jotaeleemeese]

In the US the gun lobby has managed to convince a majority that having a gun is a right.

In Switzerland owning a gun is a duty, a duty for which you bear entire responsibility.

Re:You can't compare the US to Switzerland.

[kmac06]

Actually the Second Amendment has managed to convince a majority that having a gun is a right.

Perceived safety?

[jotaeleemeese]

All countries with strict gun controls are safer than the US (at least when it comes to diying of a gun related injury).

Re:Perceived safety?

[Moofie]

Portions of the US with concealed carry gun laws are safer than areas without such laws.

Danger is not linear with number of guns. It is more closely related to the arms gap between law-abiding citizens and criminals.

Re:Perceived safety?

[Reziac]

Well, see, the nice thing about knowing that your prospective victim isn't packing a gun, is that you don't have to pack a gun either; why incur needless expense?? You can get the job done perfectly well with just a baseball bat.

Re:Perceived safety?

[Starteck81]

Well, see, the nice thing about knowing that your prospective victim isn't packing a gun, is that you don't have to pack a gun either; why incur needless expense?? You can get the job done perfectly well with just a baseball bat.
Only rational people limit the amount of force they use to scare people. A drug dealer, gang member, thief, or drug addict doesn't care that their victims are defenseless, they will still use the maximum amount of force they can afford. If a baseball bat is all they can afford then that is what they will get but if they can they will buy a gun. If they cared about people in the first place they wouldn't be doing the things they do. It all comes down to simple economics to them.

Re:Perceived safety?

[Reziac]

That may be generally true, but to fit it to my point: when all law-abiding members of society are made gun-free, even poor criminals will be able to afford the necessary tools, since anyone can cut themselves a club from the nearest tree. So if you're a poverty-stricken criminal, no need to buy a black-market gun you can't afford, when your victims won't have guns anyway.

Re:Perceived safety?

[Starteck81]

You victims may not but your competition, at least for gangs and drug dealers, still will. I haven't seen hard numbers but from what I read in the news it seems like a significant percentage of the killings are gang/drug dealer related with disputes over drug trade, respect and territory being the catalyst. This will not change by disarming law abiding citizens. It also will not get worse by having the citizen armed. These are symptoms of a society that has lost respect for human life, taking away guns will not fix that. It just disarms those that value life and would like to protect it.

If you really want to discourage gun violence then make laws that punish people more severely for committing crimes with guns. If you're caught illegally possessing a firearm 25 years. Hold up a store/ rob a house with a gun 50 years. Kill someone with gun( 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder) Life in prison or death sentence. Make the consequences for committing crime with a gun so devastating that people will start to think twice before they do it. If they still do it well then you wouldn't have solved much by taking a away the gun anyways.

Try the UK for how things should work.

[jotaeleemeese]

Sorry to say but banning guns in a country like Brazil (or Mexico) is futile since many levels of the government and the police are infiltrated with criminals of one kind or another.

The ban is a good thing, the ban is not creating a violent situation, the general state of Latinamerican societies makes impossible to enforce anything effectively.

In places like the UK (or Australia) where the rule of law applies, the ban is effective and the places are immensely safer than either the US, Brazil or parts of Mexico.

Re:Try the UK for how things should work.

[Reziac]

Right... so how do you explain Washington D.C., with the strongest anti-gun laws in the U.S., and also the highest rate of violent/gun-enforced crime?? (by which I mean where the gun is used to enforce compliance on the victim)

Conversely, various cities with easy-to-get concealed-carry permits have much lower violent crime rates. Gee, wonder why that is?

As the parent poster said, disarmed = victim. I'll bet there are big chunks of London where as a good citizen you'd sure as hell not go walking at night, because the resident thugs KNOW you're not armed....

Re:Try the UK for how things should work.

[Mr2001]

Right... so how do you explain Washington D.C., with the strongest anti-gun laws in the U.S., and also the highest rate of violent/gun-enforced crime?? (by which I mean where the gun is used to enforce compliance on the victim) 1. Easy access to guns in neighboring states. A ban is worthless if you can just drive 30 minutes away to buy a gun.

2. Density and poverty, which tend to lead to high crime with or without guns.

Conversely, various cities with easy-to-get concealed-carry permits have much lower violent crime rates. Gee, wonder why that is? Because they're usually in rural areas where crime is low anyway?

I'll bet there are big chunks of London where as a good citizen you'd sure as hell not go walking at night, because the resident thugs KNOW you're not armed.... And I'll bet that never happens here in the US. The thugs themselves are never armed, and certainly they don't have a lot of free time to spend practicing (while the rest of us are at work), so a gun always gives you the upper hand in any face-off against a thug. Right?

Re:Try the UK for how things should work.

[Reziac]

Sure. So criminals bring guns in from elsewhere, but the LAW-ABIDING citizens of Wash.D.C. are defenseless, thus easy targets.

Dallas has as much density and poverty, yet a lower gun crimes rate. Dallas allows concealed carry. Hmm....

Having had a couple face-offs with thugs, I can personally attest that a gun is a great equalizer, especially when the thug outweighs you by 200 lbs. and you know said thug has done hard time for assault (and is further known to have offed other thugs). My gun is why I am here typing this today, and not pushing up daisies.

Re:Try the UK for how things should work.

[Mr2001]

Sure. So criminals bring guns in from elsewhere, but the LAW-ABIDING citizens of Wash.D.C. are defenseless, thus easy targets. Right, but that's not really an argument against gun control in general. It just means you can't expect to have a gun-free zone right next door to a gun shop.

Dallas has as much density and poverty, yet a lower gun crimes rate. Dallas allows concealed carry. Hmm.... The UK also has a lower gun crimes rate, and guns are banned there. Hmm indeed!

My gun is why I am here typing this today, and not pushing up daisies. I'm sure that'll come as a great comfort to the families of all the people who are pushing up daisies because of guns.

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

Crime is not going up in the UK. Period.

And even if it was, gun violence is minuscule compared to what happens in the US, and constrained mostly to intergang warfare.

madness

[Travelsonic]

As a LARPer on the campus of SUNY Purchase, I am happy that we have a very tolerant/lax university PD, and as a result had no problems with using boffers and nerf "weapons". They actually are relatively curious, understanding, and as long as we follow campus policies seem to be completely cool with us doing this stuff.

I wish the same could be said for other places though, I mean come on... no nerf guns?

Smart people use google....

[ericspinder]

He forgot to mention that it's a fairly new law, and it seems to be working, 18% drop and all. Also even in 2004, the U.S. still tops the list, of gun violence deaths.. Both those were from this simple search.

Re:Urban Dead cosplaying?

[Itninja]

Have you ever played UD? You only get 50 moves a day. So I spend a grand total of 5 minutes a day playing this game. I would think that someone who thinks 'you know hat would be fun? simulated,live action, public assassination of zombies!' would peg out anyones nerd-o-meter.

Re:There is NO justification for banning nerf guns

[Culture20]

The people who need or enforce a nerf gun ban are insane. What they need is a mental institution. You bring that case before any shrink and they'll recommend a long stay at a mental health clinic.
... Where people are routinely provided with Nerf weaponry to work out aggression...

Do we ever remember two year old stories?

[anti-human 1]

Yes, they still make silly string. I'm sure just browsing that story will give plenty of google ads for buying cases upon cases of it online.

MassHoles notwithstanding, Silly String is harmless :P

Re:Not worth my time, but

[Tarantulas]

Plus add to that the cop isn't supposed to fire his weapon at all not without at least uttering the words freeze police! or holt or I'll shoot!! That is supposed to not only give the cop extra time to make a good call if needed but to also inform the suspected purp that he is confronting a cop and his next action could cost him his life if he doesn't make the right choice here. Basically freeze/halt and do whatever the man with the badge and gun tells him to do. Any cop that would shoot an individual without at least giving warning would loose his badge real quick, I.A. (Internal Affairs ) would see to that.

I would be very surprised if your local law enforcement agency uses this policy. If I am hacking at you with a machete, the arriving officer must take the time to shout a verbal warning, thus allowing me a few more (possibly lethal) strikes? I don't think so. Here's what our local Sheriff's Office policy states:

When feasible, a verbal warning shall be given.

Here's another example: The officer stops a vehicle and the driver comes out shooting (one of the scenarios we see in our annual shoot/don't shoot requalification). It would be ridiculous to require a verbal warning in that situation. While we are trained to offer the standard challenge (Police! Don't move!) if there is time, it is not mandatory for every event.

meta

[Scrameustache]

Correcting someone who posted a confused, condescending reply is not trolling.

Wow

[jgoemat]

This is just insane. They are arresting people for possessing toys. My dorm played 'nerf wars' in the basement all the time, it was a blast.

Re:Um, no. You aren't used to legal language.

[Valdrax]

That means, among other things, that ALL guns are prohibited. Squirt-guns, nerf-guns, rubber-band-guns, salad-shooters, anything that can be said to be a "gun" or to "reasonably" resemble a gun of any sort. So, a giant sugar cookie that is visually indistinguishable from a harmless nerf gun is prohibited. I don't think you understand the reasonable person standard. "Reasonable" is not a word placed in quotes to render it meaningless. It's essentially a common sense standard, as determined by a jury.

I *highly* doubt that any jury in the US would consider a big, brightly-colored, plastic toy gun that almost every member of the jury would've seen or used as a kid to be a reasonable facsimile of a gun.

Re:Not worth my time, but

[What me a Coward]

    Freeze police takes no more time to say then it takes for the purp to raise his arm never mind dropping it that argument is irrelevent and nonsense on the face of it, Waste of time to type as well.

      I am glad or rather saddened to hear your local sheriff feels that a warning is only required when he feels it's feasible. Lets hope his sense of whats feasible is suficent for him to take the time to relize the projectile fired at him was a foam one from a large rediculise object that he would have to be high and retarded enough not to have gotten to be a sheriff to avoid killing said individual.

    Thank god though that local and state police officers are held to a higher bar and are required before they put on that uniform to pass the aformentioned tests stated in my last post as I wouldn't want them to have to only hold themelves to only an abituary varining bar of what each sheriff or appointed deputy decides is feasible or not.

    In your last situation as well is rediculase to offer up as well as in that case the offender knows already he's facing police as they pulled him over in police cars not in pickup trucks or vans etc. Theirfore the supect has foreknowledge and theirfore warning is not required if he comes out shooting.

    Seriously this is your lame attempt at justification for your position that a large foam object could possibly by a high retarded cop who somehow maniaged to get by on the force longe enough to confront a college kid with the aformentioned foam shooter and make the idiot decision to shoot him??

    Im sorry your logic on this is not even funny it's that far off base.

Concerned parents calling?

[KIFulgore]

I'm sorry, but give me a bloody break. Parents should not be calling a University or College with concerns over a Nerf-based silly little game. It's not high school for God's sake -- the students there are adults.

Here's an idea for a new game...

[lazlo]

Obviously, some students are having fun reporting to the police that they're scared that the obviously harmless nerf guns might actually be real guns. That's their game, and I'm sure they enjoy it.

The retaliation is this: organize a group of students around the premise that the obviously real badges on the local police officers are, in fact, fake. Any time anyone in this group sees a police officer on campus, call the police and report a man with a gun stalking the campus. If necessary, include that he may be wearing a fake uniform. Now that humans vs. zombies is illegal, I'm sure there's a group that would be willing to play this new game.

"Yes officer, I just saw him, he was wearing all black, and had a belt on with a pistol, a flashlight, and some sort of blunt weapon. My god! what is he planning to do to those poor students!"

Can someone explain US gun law please?

[boot1973]

I'm a Brit so please excuse my ignorance on this but these students who have had their nerf guns banned.. Can't they go out a purchase a real firearm legally and keep it in their own room?

This isn't meant as a flame I'm just interested.

Re:Can someone explain US gun law please?

[Alexpkeaton1010]

In the US you need a federal background check to buy a handgun. But as long as you don't have a criminal record you are fine. However, you don't need any federal background check to buy a rifle. Some states have stricter laws than others, but in my state (PA) I have bought AK-47s (semi-auto) for $300 cash and a handshake. No papers, no background checks, nothing. If you buy the gun from a licensed dealer, you have to fill out a 1 page piece of paper where you swear that you are not crazy and have no criminal record. That is to cover the dealer's butt more than anything. But if you buy from a non-licensed person there is no paper. Also, there is no "registering" of the gun... not for pistols, rifles, or machine guns. The government has no record that you own it. The only way to trace it would be if you bought it from a licensed dealer.

In order to carry concealed you usually need a permit. In my state, you just fill out an application and they mail you back the permit. Not really a big deal. You can carry non-concealed with no permit.

As far as these students go, if they live in the dorms they probably signed a contract saying that they would not have any guns in there room. Also, maybe the students signed something upon enrollment saying that they would not bring guns on campus. Probably most likely is that there may be a State or local law that prohibits guns on University campuses... my state bans guns in courthouses, schools, airports, and probably some others. But there is no federal law that I am aware of for Universities.

Re:Can someone explain US gun law please?

[boot1973]

Thanks for this

Man, I hate LARP... but is that even what this is?

[elodoth]

Ok, a little off topic, but I feel compelled to say something.

What sort of roleplaying is involved in fighting off zombies? Does the Zombie team try to discover the new limits of their undead natures and overcome them, possible regaining some of their humanity through the struggle? No... they're zombies, they stagger around try to eat everyones brains. Now, there might be a bit of roleplaying possibilities on the Human team, but even then it would be very basic.

I'm a table top RPG guy myself, and quickly developed a distaste for LARP, but this game sounds even further removed from the spirit of true roleplaying. I think that LAFS or LASEU would be more appropriate names.

LAFS or "laughs"; pron. lahfs; Live Action First-Person Shooter
LASEU or "lasso"; pron. la-soo; Live Action Shoot 'Em Up