Quote from: Werekoala;399745That's odd, because in my experience, people who call others hardcore fanatics of a particular political thought are typically just as fanatical for another (usually opposite) political thought, and are content (in fact, eager) to label others as hardcore fanatics for some reason.

Yes.  Though this is more general than just politics or religion.

When I was younger, I was a "fanatic" type in particular niches (which I will not disclose).  I'm very familiar with the mindset and behavior.

I suppose it took me a long time to finally see it in myself, and how destructive it was.

I call them magazines, because when I want to order spares from a catalog, that's what they're called. Retailers technicians call them that. So since that's what folks call them, that's what I learned.
But years ago, I knew a gun guy--GI, at least averagely-trained--that insisted that what we're calling magazines were clips and the slot they fit into was the actual magazine. Never thought much about it till this thread. Never looked up the etymology of the word. Is the clip an archaic usage, or regonal, or what? I'm interested.

edited-to change misuse of "etiology" to "etymology," which is what I meant. Must be drunk.

Quote from: ggroy;399747I knew one person that ...

Another person I knew was ...

A third person I knew was ...

Those remind me of a guy I knew who was the most avid "anti-Christian" I'd ever met.  It all boiled down to the fact that he genuinely believed everything in Christianity--he just didn't *like* it.

I pointed out to him that people usually believe *in* something--and spend their lives studying the thing they believe *in*.  He was the opposite--he didn't study another faith, he just immersed himself in anything that attacked or debunked Christianity.

Last I knew he was a preacher somewhere...

Quote from: stu2000;399751I call them magazines, because when I want to order spares from a catalog, that's what they're called. Retailers technicians call them that. So since that's what folks call them, that's what I learned.
But years ago, I knew a gun guy--GI, at least averagely-trained--that insisted that what we're calling magazines were clips and the slot they fit into was the actual magazine. Never thought much about it till this thread. Never looked up the etiology of the word. Is the clip an archaic usage, or regonal, or what? I'm interested.

GIs -- Army guys -- who have no naval heritage (i.e. not the "marines") and have a strong historical experience with the M1 Garand (which used "clips") still refer to them as "clips".   This is fairly common.

It's kinda funny when you get an Army guy and a Marine together and the inevitable discussion ensues...  However, I have yet to see a Marine lose that argument...

Usually they get the Army guy to admit that "something that stores ammo is a magazine".

Then they hold up the "clip" and say, "what's stored in here?" And they'll say "ammo".  And then the Marine smiles and the Army guy face-palms.

I've seen this played out at least 20 times in the last three years...

Quote from: Vellorian;399752Those remind me of a guy I knew who was the most avid "anti-Christian" I'd ever met.  It all boiled down to the fact that he genuinely believed everything in Christianity--he just didn't *like* it.

I pointed out to him that people usually believe *in* something--and spend their lives studying the thing they believe *in*.  He was the opposite--he didn't study another faith, he just immersed himself in anything that attacked or debunked Christianity.

I knew of a person who was a self-styled "satanist" who fits exactly into this description.  It was a lifelong rebellion against the family, where the father was a pastor/priest of a christian church (don't recall the denomination).

Quote from: Fiasco;399746It's funny you should mention cars. We also 'violated' personal freedom by being the first country to draft seat belt laws. What do you know, our deaths by auto accident are also much lower. I see a pattern emerging.

But enough of that. I just don't understand why death by firearms is considered acceptable just because other things cause more deaths. That logic just doesn't wash with me...

It's not that "death by firearm" is more acceptable--it's that the argument "we're going to take away your freedom to defend yourself and protect yourself from a tyrannical government because a few lives can be saved" is a completely fallacious argument.

Using the argument of taking something away because a few lives can be saved--when extended to cars, doctors, or anything else, for that matter, eliminates *everything* from our lives.  

It's a fallacious argument.  

It's been proven time and again that violent crime disappears in greater numbers when the criminals know that the populace is armed.  

Kinnesaw, GA in the US is the prime example.  They required that everyone in the town own a firearm.  Crime dropped to zero.

Florida passed a Conceal Carry law--and violent crime against Florida residents dropped by a phenomenal margin (while at the same time, it increased against tourists--because tourists couldn't carry concealed!)

The bottom line is that you can't make your society perfect.  If the criminal doesn't use a gun, he'll use a knife; if he can't get a knife, he'll use a baseball bat; if he can't get a baseball bat, he'll use a fork.

Heck, planes were flown into buildings in 2001 with guys who were armed with BOX CUTTERS.  All the anti-firearm rules at the airport sure prevented that calamity, didn't they!  

It's far, far better to provide the freedom to the populace and let them live their own lives.

Heck, Switzerland gives everyone over the age of majority a fully-automatic rifle and three magazines of ammo. Crime there is near nil--and firearm deaths are virtually unknown.

You can't simply pass a law and expect everyone to be safe.  The guy shot up the McDonald's in California years ago was in violation of over 147 gun laws.  

The guy who shot up the Kirkwood courthouse in St. Louis, MO went to the one place in the city where guns were completely forbidden (he wanted unarmed victims) and he first shot the two police officers (the only ones armed within two blocks) before his rampage.

Penalizing the rest of the world for the actions of the crazy is not a solution--is a knee-jerk reaction.   A better solution, in my mind, would be to *require* that everyone carry a gun and exonerate anyone of all wrongdoing if they kill someone who is in the act of committing a crime.  

Imagine being someone contemplating robbing a bank that hands everyone who walks in the door a gun.  No criminal in their right mind would approach such a place--they'll go to the place with the metal detectors that keep all the guns outside.  Because they know that once past those metal detectors and those 2-3 guards at the door, they are the only armed force in the building.

Remember what the Japanese general said about invading the US before WWII?  

(Paraphrase) "I would be afraid of every farmer behind every bush armed to the teeth!"

The US has never been invaded.  

Our freedom to defend ourselves--both individually and as a group--is a freedom and a protection against aggression.  Yes, a few idiots abuse it.  A few idiots will *always* be a problem, with everything.  Idiots will drive their car into their neighbor's house.  Idiots will put their child in their lap while they drive to the store.  Idiots will inject someone they don't like with the wrong drugs.  These are not systemic problems that require a global solution. They are individual situations that require the application of the law after the fact.

OK, guys, this has ceased to have anything to do with gaming, which is what this forum is about.  Politics of any kind isn't welcome here--Tangency beckons, if that's more your speed, or any number of other forums, but not here.  No mas.

Please, let's keep the politics out of it, and return to gaming.  Thanks.

Fair enough.  

I'm good with that.  

Mea culpa.

(What is "Tangency"?) :confused:

Quote from: Vellorian;399768Fair enough.  

I'm good with that.  

Mea culpa.

No worries.  It's been a while since you've been here.  No harm, no foul.

Quote from: Vellorian;399760It's not that "death by firearm" is more acceptable--it's that the argument "we're going to take away your freedom to defend yourself and protect yourself from a tyrannical government because a few lives can be saved" is a completely fallacious argument.

I hear you Zach, and I promise to comply, but I have to get this off my chest:

:rotfl:

"defend yourself and protect yourself from a tyrannical government"
I almost pissed myself.  Dude, if the Army comes for you, it is over, no matter how many guns you have.  You aren't John McClane, and you don't have a script to protect you.  As lunatic gun nuts like to intone, 'Remember Waco'?  All those guns did them a fat lot of good, didn't they?

Thanks for the laugh, though, let me know how that 'Sovereign Citizen' bullshit works out for you.

So, anyway, how would you model a typical fire-arm in your favorite RPG?

An AK-47 in Hero System:
AK-47: Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, Autofire (5 shots; Semi and full auto; +1/2) (52 Active Points); OAF Unbreakable (You pretty much have to crush the thing) (-1), Beam (Small projectiles; -1/4), Inaccurate (1/2 OCV; Spray and pray; -1/4), 4 clips of 32 Charges (Recovers Under Limited Circumstances (Store, base, etc.); Bullets; +1/4)

I'm assuming it's worn buy someone who expects combat, hence 4 clips. The number of charges is a guess; I don't know the actual magazine options. With Hero Designer it took me about two minutes and that's because I added comments on all the modifiers.

1. I have an AK-101 in the corner here that disagrees strongly with your "inaccurate" claim.  Even with my shitty shooting and bad eyes I can pretty much hit what I'm pointing at in any practical engagement range, and beyond if I had a good optic for it.  It's not any less accurate than any other standard assault rifle.  The effective range of my rifle is around 500m, though that's in 5.56.  The classic AK will do around 400m.

2. 30 rounds, not 32.

3.  4 MAGS isn't even a day at the range.  Standard load out for a US Army infantryman to my recollection is generally around 270 rounds, or 9 magazines.  Again though, that's 5.56, 7.62 will be heavier, so you might or might not lighten that load a bit.  I don't know what standard ammo carry for a Russian soldier when the -47 was contemporary.  Nowadays they use 5.45mm AK-74s, which has about the same weight as 5.56, so they probably carry around the same.

Quote from: StormBringer;399787I hear you Zach, and I promise to comply, but I have to get this off my chest:

:rotfl:

"defend yourself and protect yourself from a tyrannical government"
I almost pissed myself.  Dude, if the Army comes for you, it is over, no matter how many guns you have.  You aren't John McClane, and you don't have a script to protect you.  As lunatic gun nuts like to intone, 'Remember Waco'?  All those guns did them a fat lot of good, didn't they?

Thanks for the laugh, though, let me know how that 'Sovereign Citizen' bullshit works out for you.

Don't want to derail the thread further but thank you for responding to the cut and paste from the NRA website!

On topic for the mags v clip debate I would lean towards the mags side purely because I favour the term 'loose arrows' instead of the more popular 'fire arrows'. I'm all for correct terminology where practical.

Quote from: StormBringer;399787I hear you Zach, and I promise to comply, but I have to get this off my chest:

:rotfl:

"defend yourself and protect yourself from a tyrannical government"
I almost pissed myself.  Dude, if the Army comes for you, it is over, no matter how many guns you have.  You aren't John McClane, and you don't have a script to protect you.  As lunatic gun nuts like to intone, 'Remember Waco'?  All those guns did them a fat lot of good, didn't they?

Thanks for the laugh, though, let me know how that 'Sovereign Citizen' bullshit works out for you.

:hmm: I don't know. I don't think it's that funny.

I mean. The Second Amendment (the one passed by the Congress actually, since the exact syntax and capitalizations of the text passed by some states varied) reads: "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."

It is possible to read this has a means of protection guaranteed for states to remain free of outside interferences, such as a tyrannical federal government.

Now we can have all sorts of discussion about what was really intended by using this particular phrasing, and how such an intent would have carried through the ages up to today's modern background, with weapon capabilities, crimes, unregistered weapons, etc, but the gist of Vellorian's argument isn't laughable to me, despite my disagreement vis a vis his views on the topic.

Quote from: Zachary The First;399765OK, guys, this has ceased to have anything to do with gaming, which is what this forum is about.  Politics of any kind isn't welcome here--Tangency beckons, if that's more your speed, or any number of other forums, but not here.  No mas.

Please, let's keep the politics out of it, and return to gaming.  Thanks.

Argh. Sorry. Hadn't seen that before I posted my prior message! :duh: