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?

[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?

[MrNaz]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[lostokie]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?"

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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....

[Gideon Fubar]

+1 Obscure Web Comic Reference

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:Urban Dead cosplaying?

[deopmix]

I need a +1 Introspective Mod.

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.

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?

[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.

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

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

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.

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.

WTF?

[RoboRay]

Someone call the NRA.

Re:WTF?

[Bazman]

The Nerf Rifle Association?

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.

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.

So...

[mrmeval]

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

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: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.

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: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 :-)

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.

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???

[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???

[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!

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?

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: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.

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.

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.

[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.

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).