RL gun copying Shadowrun: individualized safety., Or "$10,000 gun won't shoot when unless near an ugly watc Options

[Sengir]

In germany Jews were not allowed to have firearms. Thats a big infringement.

Yeah, people who were no longer considered citizens (or even human beings) could not own firearms. I'd dare to say that was the least of their problems....

[Daylen]

oh dont forget the 86 ban on machine guns. previously a license was needed but in 86 the progressives slipped in an ammendment to the law that disallowed issuing new licenses so pre86 lisenced machineguns and even trigger groups are worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and no new ones can enter the market.

[Tanegar]

If there was a gunshow loophole I would be happier though and not want it closed anyway. Unfortunetly every time I buy at a gun show they do a nics check as they are legally required to do:(

Really? You're really fine with the idea that a violent felon can go to a gunshow and buy whatever kind of gun he wants? You're really going to take a stand that people who have committed violent felonies should be allowed to own firearms? Really?

Really?

[Daylen]

If its so unsafe for them to have firearms (which I would agree with) then they should either NEVER be let out of jail untill they are trustworthy enough to have firearms or executed. otherwise its just the path to having a prison state instead of prisions in the state. or perhaps deport them to sea or to a country that would accept them.

[Tanegar]

Who decides when they're "trustworthy?" Who decides what the legal definition of "trustworthy" even is? Definite (as opposed to indefinite) prison terms are the principal defense against a prison state. You serve your time, you get out. That doesn't mean you're not a felon anymore, it just means you've paid your debt to society.

[Critias]

Wow, that's quite a few laws that infringe on a person's ability to own a gun.

You're right, it is. Which is all the more reason to fight, tooth and nail, against more such laws (like some silly "RFID chip in every single gun, that Uncle Sam can turn off when he wants to"), isn't it?

Who decides when they're "trustworthy?" Who decides what the legal definition of "trustworthy" even is? Definite (as opposed to indefinite) prison terms are the principal defense against a prison state. You serve your time, you get out. That doesn't mean you're not a felon anymore, it just means you've paid your debt to society.

If your debt is paid, why are your freedoms still limited? It seems like it should be an either/or -- either you're safe enough to be let out of prison, having served your time and paid or debt, or you should continue to have you rights infringed and be monitored by the state. If you're not safe enough to let out of a cage, why are you out of your cage? It's the same issue I have with, for instance, Sex Offender Registries. If they're still such a danger to kids we need to keep track of them, publish their information, monitor them, etc...why aren't they still in prison?

[Karoline]

it just means you've paid your debt to society.

I always find it funny when people say that. Prisons after all cost money to run, and thus it can be taken that a prisoner has actually increased his debt to society rather than decreased it.

If your debt is paid, why are your freedoms still limited? It seems like it should be an either/or -- either you're safe enough to be let out of prison, having served your time and paid or debt, or you should continue to have you rights infringed and be monitored by the state. If you're not safe enough to let out of a cage, why are you out of your cage? It's the same issue I have with, for instance, Sex Offender Registries. If they're still such a danger to kids we need to keep track of them, publish their information, monitor them, etc...why aren't they still in prison?

That's an exceedingly black & white view of things. Felons that have been let out of jail are assumed to be more or less 'normal' and 'safe' but they've already proven they can do X, so there is no reason to make it easy for them to do X again.

Kind of like how a pet snake or something is safe, but that doesn't mean you wrap it around your neck a couple times. Or even more tame, a pet dog is safe, but you don't go sticking your hand in its mouth.

[Daylen]

trustworthy - society is willing to let them have firearms go anywhere they want without notifying anyone, get any job they are qualified for.

"The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population." wikipedia

"a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police " princeton

People should either be free like anyone else with full constitutional rights, full federal and state privileges; or they should be in a prison sitting out their sentence. If they have paid their debt to society why punish them more by taking away their rights. otherwise you are suggesting that they can never be trusted as a full member of society, in which case they should not be allowed back into society.

[Daylen]

so felons are subhuman? perhaps we should stop them from breeding with humans then because of bestiality laws.

[Karoline]

so felons are subhuman? perhaps we should stop them from breeding with humans then because of bestiality laws.

Wow, you're good at grossly misinterpreting what I said. No, what I said was that there are more than two states of existence: Willing to let someone hold a gun to your head, and dead. Personally I think 99.99999999999999999999% of people fall somewhere in this range. There aren't many people I would trust to hold a loaded gun to my head. That doesn't mean they should be in prison or dead.

An ex-prisoner basically falls into that category, I don't really trust them with a loaded gun, but at the same time, I don't think they need to be languishing in prison. After all, there isn't really any way to tell for sure from prison if a person will go out and be reformed or just commit another crime, thus they are given a chance to go out and be reformed, while at the same time making it harder for them to commit another crime by limiting their rights to things like gun ownership.

[Daylen]

I'm not misinterpreting anything I'm anticipating a eugenics argument based not on race but some other criteria.

Saying one group can have full rights and another can't is wrong. Otherwise they are not inalienable rights.

and I dont trust anyone with a gun to my head. the moment a gun gets pointed at me there is a big problem. The business end of a firearm should only be pointed at a target to be shot weather that is paper, an animal or a human.

[Karoline]

I'm not misinterpreting anything I'm anticipating a eugenics argument based not on race but some other criteria.

Like the fact that someone killed 14 nuns?

[Daylen]

that should be a death sentence. perhaps I have not been clear enough.

If someone shows they are a threat to society and prisons cost to much I do not think they should be released I think they should be deported or executed. To do otherwise leads to that list of violations on the constitution and tyranny.

[Wounded Ronin]

In my hypothetical ideal fantasy every US citizen is forced to attend intensive firearms training in school. Only that will put to rest all the persistient myths that lead people to try and make gun control laws, like the idea that hitting your target is easy, or the idea that having full auto or burst fire mode on your rifle somehow morphs it into Excalibur.


Actually, I wonder what the skill level of criminals such as gang members is with their firearms. I always wondered what a "realistic" benchmark should be for the skill level of random gangbangers in shadowrun. I am primarly a SR3 person, so in the context of SR3 rules would they all be defaulting to Quickness due to not having formal training, or would they have an actual Pistols skill? In that case what would the Pistols skill be? My hunch was always to make it 2, again citing the lack of formal training. OTOH that means that Lone Star running around with Pistols 5 are pretty damn hardcore.

[nezumi]

That's an exceedingly black & white view of things. Felons that have been let out of jail are assumed to be more or less 'normal' and 'safe' but they've already proven they can do X, so there is no reason to make it easy for them to do X again.

1) I've never been to prison, but I can still 'do X'. Should I not be permitted to have a gun?

2) Here's the conflict. An ex-con has a right to self-defense. In fact, an ex-con is MORE likely to need to be defended than the general pop, because he's more likely to live in a bad neighborhood, to have left behind bad debts, etc. So are we saying that this person, who has done his time and we're pretty sure is 'safe' and 'normal', isn't permitted to fight back if he's attacked? Sounds a little clockwork orange to me.

3) Does anyone here really believe that limiting civilian access to weapons has had any impact on the availability of weapons, or the violent crime rates?

[Penta]

Can I inquire as a plaintive reader what the hell any of that has to do with SR?(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Critias]

I always find it funny when people say that. Prisons after all cost money to run, and thus it can be taken that a prisoner has actually increased his debt to society rather than decreased it.

Which is why I think they should be made exponentially less comfortable (and as such expensive)...but it's really neither here nor there, I guess.

That's an exceedingly black & white view of things. Felons that have been let out of jail are assumed to be more or less 'normal' and 'safe' but they've already proven they can do X, so there is no reason to make it easy for them to do X again.

If any part of our society should be exceedingly black & white, isn't it our justice system? You're either guilty or innocent, right? So you're either still in prison (because you're still being punished and you're still a menace to the public), or you're not. This half-assing it crap we do now infringes on the supposedly inalienable rights granted to citizens and endangers the general public by letting habitual re-offenders back out on the streets. It's a lose/lose, and all while bloating government (and spending our tax dollars) with the staff and security necessary to keep tabs on all these guys. If they're not safe to let back out on the streets without probation officers, databases, and limited rights...they're not safe enough to let back out on the streets.

[nezumi]

Can I inquire as a plaintive reader what the hell any of that has to do with SR?(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Actually, I think it has quite a lot to do with the Shadowrun, and specifically cyberpunk philosophy. Firearms are an equalizer. In Shadowrun, the greatest victory for the corporations is that they can now arm their own militaries and police forces. Within a decade, they become a totalitarian state. Those who have power have it at the barrel of a gun. Free men are free only because they are armed.

[Method]

And freedom from government is the the only freedom.

[Wounded Ronin]

And freedom from government is the the only freedom.

Goddamn, you just made me imagine Janis Joplin jumping around in Shadowrun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FMhnl0__Vo

[Rystefn]

Imagine if -all- guns had a system like this, and that the RFID chip could be shut down from some central government place. Dude goes crazy and starts trying to shoot up his office? Shut down the chip and all he has is a paperweight. Someone steals your guns? Well, they're basically worthless without the chip.

Now, I know it would be possible to bypass a system like this, but it could be made difficult. Might be a little 'big brother'y but it could save alot of lives from: people shot by their own guns when being robbed, disgruntled employees trying to take out their office mates, children finding the gun and playing with it, and might also go a long way in reducing illegal gun ownership due to the difficulty of having to strip out the extra parts for the RFID scanner.

Actually, this would accomplish pretty much nothing. Constructing a firearm from scratch is pretty trivial. This is seven or eight hundred year old technology by now. Far too late to keep it under wraps.

[kzt]

And it's not hard for an organized covert group to make some ammo. Like a few million rounds of 9mm.

[Tanegar]

And freedom from government is the the only freedom.

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but:

Really? You're really fine with absolute anarchy? You're really going to take a stand that taxes and laws and police departments are so abhorrent that Mad Max-style every-man-for-himself guy-with-the-biggest-guns-makes-the-rules lawlessness is preferable? Really?

Really?

[Zen Shooter01]

This product has oodles of amazing stupidity in its design.

As has been mentioned, at what range from the watch does the weapon function? Too short, and you can't shoot with your off hand. Too long, like a meter or so, and you're still getting shot by someone you're in hand to hand combat with who's gotten your weapon away from you. It does little to prevent theft of firearms, because the thieves will just steal the watch, too - making what might have been a burglary without any face-to-face between homeowner and perpetrators into an assault.

It does prevent your spouse, teenager, platoon mate or fellow officer from using the weapon in an emergency, though.

And why design a whole new gun? Why not just add this device to a popular and proven model (Beretta 92F, Glock 19, 1911), and thereby keep down development costs and increase public acceptance?

And why in f!cking frogtown does it cost $10,000?

an earlier poster suggested that all firearms with a feature like this could be shut down at will by the government. As a gunslinger and Second Amendment advocate, that idea is absolutely revolting. Thanks for coming out tonight, Mr. Orwell. Stand up, take a bow.

[Daylen]

Absolute anarchy... I've thought about how that would work and it would probably be more like ancient Rome than mad max.

But I dont think anyone is going for that here, I could be wrong though. Freedom from govt is what the constitution was supposed to grant. Just enough fed govt to keep foreign powers from taking over but not enough fed govt to do much of anything that would stifle freedom or get into peoples lives. Just enough state and local govt to keep the federal govt from overstepping its bounds and keep general order. How far we have come from freedom in that last century of progressivism.