Not to pick on any one user but this caught my attention:




Now this sticks in my craw for a few reasons. So I want to open up a discussion on how everyone sees the game world and just how armed it really is, and when.

So for my own view point-which is similar to the post above-but with some differences. I think it wouldn't be uncommon to be armed outside of corporate enclaves and government strongholds. Despite the flavor text-in one of the rare few cases I have a major disagreement with the "Fluff" as it were-I see no reason why anyone would allow anything heavier than what we currently see in society now a days. Obviously because of the fracturing of society as we know it, and the balkanization of both governments and corporations (Something I think gets way over played at some points. Yes they'd be adversarial but just like today it's better to reign in hell than let someone else in on the game. Some cooperation would exist-even if it was twisted, and oft times self serving.)

So while I think it wouldn't be uncommon for the average SINner to own a small arm, or even a fancy knife or ceremonial sword-I doubt too much they'd be allowed to walk around willy nilly showing off their hardware in areas where organized society and law enforcement exist. And despite the seemingly easy going atmosphere in most Shadowrun authors fictional portrayal of the world booze and weapons don't mix. Even in poorer areas I suspect there would be a heavy stigma against, if not an out right ban on brandishing weaponry in a nightclub or other establishment.

Now I'm sure someone will throw the barrens in my face. And I agree to every rule there are exceptions. but say you're running a bar, even in the barrens and a bunch of cats keep showing up with automatic weapons, and pounding brews while they plot felonies they'd like to commit. Why do you stay in business? what's to stop them from taking your business? Killing you? I'm sure the more enterprising of you will say-well I'd fight! I'd hire muscle! And BHAM! we enter the never ending cycle of war right?

In the end for my dollar Shadowrun is a dangerous world, and a world where automatic weapons are more easily acquired. But its' not one where you walk around brandishing your arms like a knight one horse in a medieval village.

But every table is different. What are your views?

Its not as big a deal today as in 1700s, but lets just leave it at this, a simple question: what does the second amendment have to say about the security of a FREE State? And remember words were chosen VERY carefully back then, and they knew what a regular army was, and a militia it was not. But all that is off topic and should be discussed elsewhere. Along with M1911 vs whatever.

Ohhhh. Ah, yes, I understand what you're talking about. I never saw that as anathema to the existence of a standing army, however. I think that's all that should be said on THAT topic. While I've seen political and religious discussions last hundreds of pages of civil discussion, any good one is always on the verge of breaking out in flames, so I guess I'll just sit quietly and wait for more interesting topics to listen to and learn from.

One of the few accents I can't phonetically spell, ironically.

That movie & it's sequel has caused me more sleepless nights of insane laughter & pain than I care to remember or admit. During the 80's, it was that movie & Bill Murray's Stripes was everywhere with the quotes.

Modern ones work fine when kept lubricated. I shot one in a class that had over 10,000 rounds since it had been cleaned. And they are very deadly at close range. For example, this thread: Why you do not want to get shot with an M16...(Warning: Disturbing photograph). And yes, it's a gory and disturbing set of photos of what 5.56 does to someone's leg. Don't click on it if you don't want to see it.

So do you think that is an L or an M?

Meaning?

Light or Moderate wound. As in did he take the full 8M or did he reduce it once?

Old damage codes. Before the 4^th.

Got it. Threw me for a minute there.
Thanks.

Some of us refuse to change with the times (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

*Looks at Bull and the Cyberdeck on his arm* I noticed.

That is totally an M or S wound - it depends on how much damage to the femur there is. An L wound, being only a +1 TN, is the equivalent to a cut or large bruise.

Think about it in terms of healing times: "How long would that bullet wound take to heal to "unwounded" assuming basic medical attention?"

The X-Ray shows some rather excessive damage to the bone, as it was concussion that apparently caused it. That usually causes splintering which is bad, and hard to set right. Pins are usually required, IIRC.

...

Sorry, picked up a few things from my OR/ER Nurse Grandmother. I might be right off, but...

That is much worse than a cut or large bruise... Did you not notice the pic showing the femur was broken something harsh? I've seen dead things that looked in better shape than that guys leg...

I think the dude got a S or maybe D wound. If it was D, then he was either stabilized by medical staff prior to bleeding out or self-stabilized by making his roll.

This is why I'm bothered by Assault rifles being M and such a low M at that. I get that they wanted the damage to be low base so that when on full auto the damage would be somewhat manageable or survivable.

...Yes? That's why I said it's an M or an S wound, and NOT an L wound.

I misread what you wrote.

The society is at least this armed.

My two cents: How many people who legally own firearms nowadays will (outside of a military situation) actually utilize those firearms in an act of self-defense or self-preservation? I would imagine it will be a very, very small percentage.

Now, does that small chance actually impact the number of people who own firearms? I doubt it. To a lot of people, it's a nice thing to have... a security blanket of sorts, a 'better to have and not need than need and not have' security measure. I would imagine it's the same with the world of 2070. If firearms are legal and commonly available (and depending on the location, they are and they definitely are) then I imagine you'd have at least the same percentage of people owning those then, as you have now... for primarily the same reasons.

In a lot of the shadowrun stories, the majority of corporate employees seem to act like the corporate employees of today: They trust in authority to take care of things... it's why Panicbuttons are so prevalent. From what I've read, other than the occasional global issue (IE crash 2.0) many employees will rarely if ever see the shadowy side of the dystopia they live in (unless you live in a Pink Mohawk campaign, perhaps, where a building blows up every other day) and those situations that arise should (in the belief of the employee) be taken care of by corporate/government security.

A corp employee who owns a firearm will most likely do so out of a sense of comfort, not out of any kind of 'statistical chance of conflict' or what have you. Realistically, in the case of a corporate sheep getting caught up in an actual shadowrun going down in the proximity? Three words: Someone else's problem. The typical response of most of these people will be to hide, hit the panic button, and wait for the scary noise to go away. Let the heavily armed and armored security force respond to the threat... that's how it works now, and I imagine it'll be even worse 60 years from now when someone built (cybernetically) for combat has such a massive edge over the typical employee built around a deskjob. This is especially true as Shadowrun seems to move further and further away from runs involving violent conflict and random collateral damage, and more towards the black trenchcoat, in-and-out, subtle runs.

Realistically, most will recognize that having a pistol will not make an ounce of difference between being killed and not being killed (especially when the chances of your attacker having incredible speed, reflexes, implanted aiming hardware, and heavy subdermal bodyarmor), at least on a logical level... and so owning a firearm is not based upon reason, but (again) upon emotion/feeling safe. As such, I believe that shadowrun has no more and no less of an armed society than the locations they're based around now. Heck, in 2070, even a lot of the awakened wildlife seems to have been cleared out of the major population centers. Gone, typically, are the days of a random hellhound chewing on somebody in Seattle's business district. As to the barrens? Well, many corp citizens will make a long, healthy life goal of not going to the Barrens. At some point, the only way for an employee to survive a firefight with a typical street sam will be to become a street sam on his own, at which point... what company will hire him for a typical desk job? That kind of paranoia (is it really paranoia when it could some day be necessary?) looks bad and might freak out the other employees... plus, obviously, someone decked out as a street sam for a desk job is a shadowrunner in disguise... even if he's not!

This brings up another point... how often do shadowrunners infiltrate businesses by posing for entry-level jobs? Would this kind of behavior lead companies to be suspicious of employees with heavier-than-typical weapons and armor? Even arms and armor that are legal... why would they need that kind of firepower? Etc, etc.

Again, just my two cents.

If you are posing as a worker you don't bring your assault rifle to work unless it's "Ares Bring your Alpha to Work Day!"

How many people do you personally know who were killed because were not wearing a seat belt? I don't know anyone personally. Statistically it's highly unlikely that I will need to wear a seatbelt on any give day. Does that mean I don't put on a seat belt? No.

It's extremely unlikely that on any given day you will need a gun. I do know several people who have found themselves in a situation facing bad people who intended to do bad things to them and convinced them to desist so while aiming a firearm at them. Possibly what convinced them was the force of their personality, but I have my doubts.

@kzt
Before seat belts became mandatory? Most of the people who died in car accidents. One of the most usefull inventions of the US-Army.
(I guess the number of "people saved by seatbelt" goes in the millions. Well, if I think of it (cosidering how long cars are around), it is probably more in the billions. )
One year in germany alone means about 2 million car accidents.
So statistically it is more than likely you will need one to prevent injury or death one day. (Unless you are not driving a car)

First off, not saying that buying a weapon is pointless; I've owned firearms for home defense, though thanks to a recent move (and needing to have spare money to move, as well as less gear to move with) I am currently without; I'm just saying nobody I know has a legitimate story in which having a firearm defused a situation or saved their life... and I come from Waco, Texas, where firearms are a pretty common thing. I'm not saying such situations don't occur (I carried a small revolver for running... never used it, glad I didn't have to, but would have been glad to have it if such a situation ever popped up. The majority of people who own those 'just in case' firearms will never need them, and most (at least hopefully) will hope to never need them. It ends up being a security blanket, and I figure that people in 2070 will see this as well. Heck, there are shows that show shadowrunners in action. Think about watching an anime or an outrageous action movie and knowing that there are really people out there like that... and that's what life is like in 2070. Why did I have a firearm? Why did my father? Why did my friends? Aside from the fun of the firing range... because we feel safer. We aren't necessarily safer (at least, not to a significant degree) but we feel that way.

What I am saying is that people seem to defend one side or the other of this conversation with statistical facts; "X number of crimes in Y country are related to guns, or violence is more likely to happen here, or there, etc," which does in fact work somewhat now... but not so much in 2070, where a typical shadowrunner can bare-hand kill a pistol-armed corp citizen before said citizen can get a shot off... and even if the corp citizen does get a shot off, the round isn't likely to penetrate the shadowrunner's underwear, let alone subdermal armor/ mage protection / drone case. Right now, firearms are an equalizer. In 2070, combat cybernetics are the new equalizer, with firearms being merely a tool for the cybernetic character to use. Granted, not every shadowrunner is cybernetically enhanced, but you can replace 'cybernetics' with combat magic or armored/armored drones, and you'll have the same result: a corp citizen unable to defend himself regardless of what legal equipment he uses.

So, yes, in 2070, the typical corp citizen (even armed with a pistol) will need to recognize that in almost any combat situation that pops up, that pistol will just get him killed. It's a point that's somewhat true today (consider a group of thugs with full-auto weaponry, body armor, and the training to effectively use weaponry and teamwork versus a few guys with pistols) and more true in the future. On the other hand, I don't see the security blanket aspect of owning a firearm changing any time soon. Even if hellhounds don't roam the streets of Seattle now... it's only been a few years. People still remember the turmoil of the 50s and 60s, etc.

Notwithstanding what you had to say about ownership for self-preservation - and I think you made an excellent point - we should also all remember that probably the majority of people today don't own firearms for self-defense, either: they own them for hunting, and pest control, as collectible items, as heirlooms. Surely this trend will continue into the future, as well.