Umm, have to bring up the new "look"

[Will]

Just my $0.02...

I voted "I don't really care one way or the other", and I really don't. I can understand the viewpoint of those who see the bullet as something out of place. I also understand those who say it's right where it belongs.

I have grown up and still live in an area of the country where guns are a fact of life. Nearly every house has at least one gun, and most males over 16 have at least one gun. Where I live, a gun is a natural thing to have, and people don't understand what all the fuss is about with guns. Some kid took a gun into his/her (though it's been mostly males thus far) school and shot at people? Then he never was taught how to use a gun. "He should get a good beating, he should have to look at what the results of his carelessness was, someone should teach him how to properly use a gun, then he should be put in jail for however many years the Judge decides", that's the response you would get here.

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

To get to the point: The bullet fits into the WarGaming genre. There are other things that could fit into the genre. Somebody will find something wrong with any header, no matter how many polls are held. For this particular one, it will probably end up being 33%/33%/33%, bullet bad/bullet good/I don't care. You can't please everyone.

[Sirkit]

Just thougt I'd add that th keep the bullet voters are ahead by 5%,followed by the dump it colum, VOTE PEOPLE VOTE, democracy doesn't work unless everyone participates

[Magus38]

Let me start off with the premise that violence is like money. In and of itself it is a neutral expression of conflict, an evolutionary transaction. Societies, cultures, like any organism, must conform to the rule that the first virtue is simply the ability to adapt and thus survive. All later cultural expressions, every art and every science must ultimately depend on this will to self preservation. Any culture which has eschewed such measures historically or begins to view violence even in self defense as anethema has ceased to exist.

A good example of this occured during one of the mongol invasions of China. The bureaucratic ruling class, the mandarins, upon learning that the mongols were advancing on them simply tokk to their beds in a show of complete fatalism and awaited death.

A game of this scope puts you in the position of absolute ruler and as such you must take absolute responsibility for all decisions, even the bloody ones that the struggle to survive and thrive imposes on competing species. To shy away from such action is both irresponsible and historically unrealistic. This is a wargame and like many of the better 4x or Civ type games it illustrates many of the painful truths underlying the success and survival of any species. Those who are most commited to their survival, do.

Some may think after reading this that I am advocating violence. Nothing could be further from my intention. It would be ideal if all species could live in harmony with each other, husbanding each other's growth culturally, scientifically and spiritually and perhaps one day we shall evolve to such a point on this planet. Until such a time arrives, however, a certain amount of historical realism continues to be merited.

Having said all this, I admit that I don't like the bullet. It seems a little too "Sgt. Rock" to me and these games are more sophisticated than that. So my objection is purely aesthetic, not motivated by any variety of political correctness. I felt it was important to put things in perspective (my perspective I suppose).

[This message has been edited by Magus38 (edited 03 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Magus38 (edited 03 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Magus38 (edited 03 April 2001).]

[dogscoff]

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

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

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

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

[Magus38]

I usually insist it's research...

[MKSheppard]

Will sez:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dogscoff]

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

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

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