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

[nezumi]

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?

Firstly, I don't think anyone is recommending absolutely no government. However, the US government of 1800 was pretty close, and things seemed to work out pretty nicely.

Secondly, we do have examples of actual anarchy. Almost never is it 'Mad Max style', at least not for any amount of time (and when it is, it's because of the transitory period, just like you see with any other transition between governments). The truth is, people don't poop where they eat, and most people don't need the government breathing down their necks to remember that.

[Sengir]

Free men are free only because they are armed.

I'm quite certain that I am more free than my grandfather who could buy as many guns as he pleased...

[Daylen]

well how can you be more free if you can't buy as many guns of whatever sort as you please? what freedom have you gained that was not availible to your grandfather?

[Warlordtheft]

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

Nothing really---though it may give you some insight into how gun control may work in the future (as politically charged topic that it is). Also---this is dumpshock, be prepared to go off topic.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Karoline]

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.

Given that this has come up like three times now, I have to ask, how many people really fire with their off hand? In some high speed capacity that precludes the ability to move your safety device from one wrist to the other?

AFAIK the proper way to shoot a pistol involves holding it with both hands anyway, so I really don't see this whole 'off hand firing' thing being a real issue.

[nezumi]

I'm quite certain that I am more free than my grandfather who could buy as many guns as he pleased...

I'm also rather curious what freedoms you have that your grandfather didn't. Looking at my own situation, I can't think of any (well, except the freedom from having to actually talk to people face to face to do all my banking and have all my food delivered directly to my house).

[Warlordtheft]

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.

Umm, because it makes sense that part of a person's punishment includes the loss of certain rights. Prison, like the death penalty is not the only way to punish somebody. It is like taking away a drunk driver's drivers license.

There are two parts to what makes up a sentence: the punishment factor, and the deterrent factor.

[Penta]

Three, actually. You forget the rehabilitative factor.

[Daylen]

and by doing so everyone else is punished with the excuse of trying to keep firearms out of the hands of felons. This is also done at great expense and much bigger govt and much more involvement of the govt in places it has no constitutional business.

[Karoline]

and by doing so everyone else is punished with the excuse of trying to keep firearms out of the hands of felons. This is also done at great expense and much bigger govt and much more involvement of the govt in places it has no constitutional business.

As a sound bite from Command and Conquer said "AK-47s for everyone!"

[Critias]

Given that this has come up like three times now, I have to ask, how many people really fire with their off hand? In some high speed capacity that precludes the ability to move your safety device from one wrist to the other?

AFAIK the proper way to shoot a pistol involves holding it with both hands anyway, so I really don't see this whole 'off hand firing' thing being a real issue.

Here, maybe this will help. So hold a handgun the "proper" way, and what happens? You've got your arms sticking out in front of you, between your center of mass (where most folks will be trying to shoot) and whoever it is you're shooting at. Right? What's that mean? It means folks get shot in the arms an awful lot, in gunfights. And it means you need to train at how to keep shooting with just one arm or the other -- and you don't get to choose which, the bullets do -- including with just your off-hand. You might not see it in action flicks real often, but that doesn't mean you also won't see it at serious training camps.

And any time you have to shoot with just your off hand, it's safe to say it's "in some high speed capacity" that means you don't want to stop and fuck around with an ugly wristwatch, too, just to be able to keep shooting.

As a sound bite from Command and Conquer said "AK-47s for everyone!"

Why not?

You can either trust the people of your country (in which case they're citizens), or you can't (in which case they're subjects). Just because you don't know enough about firearms to be safe carrying one around doesn't mean the rest of us should have our rights to do so taken away.

Why does it tend to be those who know the least about firearms that are the most eager, and strongly opined, when it comes to taking them away from those who do know about them?

[Ryu]

If you use an unknown item unprepared, it will end up in your dominant hand.

If you willingly choose the hand used, you know the reason why.

[TheOneRonin]

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.

Someone has been eavesdropping on my dreams...

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.

In my games (SR4), the average ganger defaults on his firearms tests. He generally doesn't have any training, nor does he actually shoot enough to gain enough experience to get any meaningful skill rating. The senior gangers...lieutenants, gang bosses, etc., will probably have Rating 1 or 2 in their firearm skill of choice, but probably not much more.

Organized crime personnel are more likely to have at least semi-formal firearms training. Rating 1 is going to be common amongst the soldiers...possible 2, with higher ratings belonging to the vets.

Cops (Lone Star beat cops, specifically) should be rating 2 on the average. They just don't train/shoot that much to be rated much higher on average. Some officers will be marksman...the type that personally owns several firearms, and spends tons of free time on the range...yes, he should have a skill of 3. A skill of 5 for beat cops is obnoxiously stupid and even breaks with SR's own skill level definitions

Rating 5: EXPERT
-Firearms Example: SWAT Teams, Elite Military (Rangers, Special Forces)

Your average 12-man SF ODA burns through more ammo at the shooting ranges in a month than my entire Infantry Company (~140 men) normally did in a year. Keeping up that level of skill requires you to shoot ALL THE TIME. Just like highly skilled athletes have to practice ALL THE TIME. Michael Phelps swims ALL THE TIME. My brother is a cop in New Orleans, and there isn't a single cop he knows that even shoots as much as I did back when I was in the Army.

The way I see it, a skill rating of three represents either A.) Having had very high levels of training, but only actually using the skill just enough to maintain proficiency or B.) Having a skill that you use pretty much every day. I'm a sys admin, so I work with servers and networks every day. If I only did it as a hobby and MAYBE touched a network/server once a week instead of 40+ hours a week, I don't think I could justify having a skill of 3 or higher.

Granted, this is a game, and I can see the need to artificially jack up the skill ratings of the opposition to make them a challenge to your runners, but every cop having a firearms skill of 4 or 5 is just plain fucking retarded.

[Sengir]

well how can you be more free if you can't buy as many guns of whatever sort as you please? what freedom have you gained that was not availible to your grandfather?

Let's see...I don't risk getting arrested, tortured and/or shot for not agreeing with the government, I can crack jokes about the military without getting shot right away, can listen to foreign radio stations and not risk being dragged out of my bed by the Gestapo, and if I was a gay Jewish communist nobody would give a shit.
Oh, and if I want less gun control I can just vote a party which supports that, or found my own...

[Daylen]

But I dont want an AK47! I would take one of those saigas though.

[Daylen]

and as far as mandatory firearms training, well funny ya should mention. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
makes it mandatory for all ablebodied men to muster 2 times a year and mandates they must own a musket or rifle, in addition to a bayonette, bullets, powder and wadding for the weapon. It does not say how you must get the gear though. It was repealed though in 1903
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
instead of a full repeal though I think we should have just added the national guard.

[Penta]

It was repealed because it was *never enforced*, generally speaking.

Hate to say it, but the militia was worse than useless in battle in both the war of 1812 and every war afterwards up to the 1903 Militia Act.

The volunteers were better, but still nowhere near the quality of the Regular Army.

[Daylen]

well yes. and it would probably be better anyway to have firearms training as part of a k-12 school requirement as reading and such are.

[Rystefn]

well yes. and it would probably be better anyway to have firearms training as part of a k-12 school requirement as reading and such are.

I'd support it. It's a lot more plausible and would prevent more deaths/injuries than stricter gun control laws, I would wager.

[Penta]

One problem with that: Many schools today are built on very limited parcels of land. Indoor firing ranges are a bad idea with kids due to lead contamination issues, if I recall correctly.

Where the heck would you put such a firing range?

It sounds like something that would work in the West (and perhaps the South) where there's lots of land and space...But it wouldn't work in the Northeast, Midwest, or Pacific Coast.

Forget the philosophical issues (how would it work with special ed kids, who maybe are blind or otherwise not safe to use a firearm? Would there be a philosophical exemption for pacifist kids?), I don't see how it'd be practical.

[Rystefn]

It's still more plausible than taking away everyone's guns. Handicapped kids get the same sort of exemptions they'd get for PE classes, which is to say, you'd make a case-by-case assessment. As for pacifists, who cares? They're shooting paper, not people. You allow that through, and every parent who thinks "Ewww... guns are teh ebil!" will be claiming their kid's a pacifist to get the exemption, which defeats the entire purpose in the first place.

[pbangarth]

Firstly, I don't think anyone is recommending absolutely no government. However, the US government of 1800 was pretty close, and things seemed to work out pretty nicely.

Not so much for the Indians, I think.

Secondly, we do have examples of actual anarchy. Almost never is it 'Mad Max style', at least not for any amount of time (and when it is, it's because of the transitory period, just like you see with any other transition between governments). The truth is, people don't poop where they eat, and most people don't need the government breathing down their necks to remember that.

Somalia?

[Penta]

So you admit that this is basically using the school to teach a political viewpoint. Religious freedom and similar inalienable rights be damned.

That's why I wager that were it tried, the courts would invalidate so fast there'd be a vacuum.

Face it: DC v Heller is the best you're going to get. The Second Amendment does not mean what you think it does. (It'd be illegal to take away everyone's guns, but there is precisely an allowance for the government to regulate the possession of firearms.)

[Rystefn]

So you admit that this is basically using the school to teach a political viewpoint. Religious freedom and similar inalienable rights be damned.

I admit no such thing. It is the school teaching a skill and the basic safety associated with its use. If you think pacifism applies to putting holes in a piece of paper, you completely misunderstand the word "pacifism." As far as freedom of religion goes... well, I'v never heard of a religion that requires its practitioners not put holes in paper, nor of one that forbids the use of firearms, so I don't see what has to do with the discussion at hand anyway.

[Method]

I find it ironic that people who balk at the idea of an armed citizenry enjoy playing a game wherein one of the central themes is that a disenfranchised segment of society empowers themselves through acquiring illegal arms and the skills to use them and then does so to commit crimes against the oppressive establishment.

Its kind of like how the liberal elite in Hollywood is so fond of gun control, yet they make their "obscene" fortunes (to use the populist lingo) off movies that glorify gun violence.