Has anyone come across statistics about distances involved in firearm crimes?, sniper-who-what? Options

[Shinobi Killfist]

For urban areas, especially in jurisdictions where C&C permits are widely and easily available that makes sense. But rural areas this doesn't necessarily hold true, I grew up where long guns on racks in the back window, in the back seat, or even in the middle of the front seat weren't uncommon (rural western Canada). Obviously the tables are completely turned on that in Canada where for the vast majority of people it a no-no to even transport a handgun in a vehicle outside a straight path between storage locations or to a gun range.

-- -- -- -- --

Thanks everyone for all the great posts.

True, I've been a city folk for too long I guess. My few years in gun rack territory doesn't track in my normal thought patterns.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Shooting unaware targets is slightly too easy, given that Vision Magnification completely negates all range penalties. Somebody with Agility 3 and Longarms 3 can snipe a distant target no huhu with vision mag.

Yes, yes it is. I would have preferred vision mag canceling 3 dice of penalties or something so long and extreme range were still tough shots.

[kzt]

WTF?

Front sight, front sight, front sight, and proper trigger squeeze.

It is what it is. He includes information on over 800 attempted and successful assassinations in the book. When he couldn't find a single successful handgun attack at over 25 feet it suggests that they are damn uncommon. While Gavin De Becker has some very odd ideas about the utility of guns for self-defense, he has built a successful executive protection firm and is a consultant for the Secret Service, the Federal courts, etc and ignoring what his research finds because it sounds wrong to you would be unwise. He's also includes some research his company as done about how long it takes to carry out and respond to certain types of attacks, and interesting detailed analysis of a few attacks.

[Wounded Ronin]

It is what it is. He includes information on over 800 attempted and successful assassinations in the book. When he couldn't find a single successful handgun attack at over 25 feet it suggests that they are damn uncommon. While Gavin De Becker has some very odd ideas about the utility of guns for self-defense, he has built a successful executive protection firm and is a consultant for the Secret Service, the Federal courts, etc and ignoring what his research finds because it sounds wrong to you would be unwise. He's also includes some research his company as done about how long it takes to carry out and respond to certain types of attacks, and interesting detailed analysis of a few attacks.

Hmm, let me put it this way.

If someone who trains in the use of handguns less than I do (I usually participate in a sporting event that uses up 170-200 rounds once a month; apparently that's more practice than a lot of police officers do who in some cases just need to qualify every quarter or something) I wouldn't be surprised if the person failed to hit their target while under stress from outside of 25 feet because in my experience once you begin to feel stress your trigger squeeze is going to become jerky because you're trying to squeeze the shot off quickly and because you're experiencing stress. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if in most cases or even the vast majority of cases shots tended to be down and to the left.

With the amount that I currently do practice, sometimes I miss along the lines described above when firing at a small target 25 feet away or further, but depending on how good of a day I'm having, I like to think that when I focus on my trigger squeeze, form, proper aiming, etc, that I hit the target properly anywhere from 50% to 90% of the time, again depending on if I'm having a good day or a bad day. I also feel I'd do significantly better if I practiced more often. Now that's going after head-sized targets, so that would be closer to super Zen BOOM HEADSHOT mo-mo-monsterkill than just a typical shot to center mass.

So the reason that statistic seems weird to me is that even though I'd expect a lot of misses with handgun assaults at the same time just a little bit of practice should make for much much better statistics than "none of the time". I mean, 25 feet is pretty close.

[Wounded Ronin]

Shooting unaware targets is slightly too easy, given that Vision Magnification completely negates all range penalties. Somebody with Agility 3 and Longarms 3 can snipe a distant target no huhu with vision mag.

Yeah, I always felt that SR would benefit from more penalties at long range, but also allowing for things like negation of some of those penalties for firing prone and supported, or for multiple take aim actions, etc.

[kjones]

Granted, there's a tradeoff between simplicity and realism, and I think SR4 combat is usually pretty close to the sweet spot there. I just think it makes vision mag too good, is all.

[Wounded Ronin]

Granted, there's a tradeoff between simplicity and realism, and I think SR4 combat is usually pretty close to the sweet spot there. I just think it makes vision mag too good, is all.

I noticed that Pheonix Command, besides for the fact that it handled suppression fire and compensating for bullet drop, resulted in a game that was actually really really similar to the older Rainbow Six games, like the ones where you planned out your whole raid in advance, up to the PC version of Rainbow Six 3, where they designed it so that gaming skills could only take you so far.

Basically Pheonix Command kept track of the time it took to change stance, ready a weapon, pivot 30 degrees, and so on. Very much like the early Rainbow Six where basically when all was said and done whomever was crouched and covering the area would pretty much pwn the person who tried to rush the area, unless the defender was affected by a flashbang or something. Phoenix Command had a little more detail in terms of physical action, in that you could fire from the hip for a penalty if you didn't have time to get into a shooting stance, but Rainbow Six 3 had a hell lot more detail in terms of equipment, i.e. your recoil characteristic would improve if you had a helical mag on your rifle because of the weight.

[Dwight]

So the reason that statistic seems weird to me is that even though I'd expect a lot of misses with handgun assaults at the same time just a little bit of practice should make for much much better statistics than "none of the time". I mean, 25 feet is pretty close.

Maybe it is because the target's head does or might move? Or other things move in the way or try stop you? In no way am I belittling the skill required for shooting on the range, or how that practice can help someone in the field. But there is a lot less going on at the range, a lot more unknowns (and danger) to handle/filter in the field, right?

Also, although I've not picked up the book yet (and do I plan to), the "failure" category might include just injuring rather than killing the target? That implies you must kill on the first shot (so realistically you need to make that headshot, square on like into the "snot cage" from the front, to have a good percentage, right?) or be able to adjust for the dynamics of follow-up target movement/dropping, defenders acting, etc. to land more shots to finish the job.

EDIT: Another possibility. Certainty is King. So most thought out plans involve getting in close. Ergo you are seeing a much higher percentage of "Plan B" (attacker has been prematurely detected or isn't sure WTF is happening because something unexpected occured) and/or adhoc/poorly planned/unplanned situations when the attack is coming from outside 25 ft.



-- -- -- -- --

As for simplicity I would rather have SR error on the side of cranking up the long range default TN/Threshold, and handle lowering it via the sprinkling of exceptions. Setting aside "realism" for the moment, from a strictly gaming POV I find the easy long shot that much of a drama killer. So I think it actually misses the "sweet spot".

[X-Kalibur]

I noticed that Pheonix Command, besides for the fact that it handled suppression fire and compensating for bullet drop, resulted in a game that was actually really really similar to the older Rainbow Six games, like the ones where you planned out your whole raid in advance, up to the PC version of Rainbow Six 3, where they designed it so that gaming skills could only take you so far.

Basically Pheonix Command kept track of the time it took to change stance, ready a weapon, pivot 30 degrees, and so on. Very much like the early Rainbow Six where basically when all was said and done whomever was crouched and covering the area would pretty much pwn the person who tried to rush the area, unless the defender was affected by a flashbang or something. Phoenix Command had a little more detail in terms of physical action, in that you could fire from the hip for a penalty if you didn't have time to get into a shooting stance, but Rainbow Six 3 had a hell lot more detail in terms of equipment, i.e. your recoil characteristic would improve if you had a helical mag on your rifle because of the weight.

Raven Shield (Rainbow Six 3) was probably the crowning point of the series. I still enjoy playing it with my friend on Elite setting with max tangos, although you can pretty easily abuse it with the right setups. Aside from smoke + thermal scope on the integral silenced sniper rifle, you'd be amazed at the power a silenced Mac-10 with extra clips can do. For extra fun, try rescuing hostages with nothing but pump action shotguns (and flash, smoke, gas, etc). God I miss that game

[KnightRunner]

Ok consider this a loose comparison, because I in no way am trying to imply that the two are exactly the same.

I used to play an unhealthy amount of paintball, back in the day. Even at my best I always laughed about the paint to kill ratio. I would spray an insane amount of paint across the field over the course of a game. I used to go in with tubes strapped all over me. I always said that "I never lost a game for lack of shooting back." I might go through 2-300 rounds and come out with only a kill or two. Most of the time, when range gets tight, people start diving for cover and doing everything they can to make themselves hard to hit. So yeah hitting, a person that does not want to be hit is a lot harder than many people think. And I had the advantage of knowing the paintballs were not going to kill me. Even if they did leave a few bruises now and then.

[Ascalaphus]

The advantage of deprecating long-range sniping PCs, is that it explains why they don't get sniped to death by NPCs on a regular basis too.

[Wandering One]

Ok consider this a loose comparison, because I in no way am trying to imply that the two are exactly the same.

I used to play an unhealthy amount of paintball, back in the day. Even at my best I always laughed about the paint to kill ratio. I would spray an insane amount of paint across the field over the course of a game. I used to go in with tubes strapped all over me. I always said that "I never lost a game for lack of shooting back." I might go through 2-300 rounds and come out with only a kill or two. Most of the time, when range gets tight, people start diving for cover and doing everything they can to make themselves hard to hit. So yeah hitting, a person that does not want to be hit is a lot harder than many people think. And I had the advantage of knowing the paintballs were not going to kill me. Even if they did leave a few bruises now and then.

Having played a number of paintball games myself (both woodsball and speedball), there is a difference in paintball. You can Neo-Matrix the paintballs, I've done it often enough, especially over 10 feet. They slow down a LOT faster then ammo. Some baggie clothing does wonders for catching shots (I used to wear my flanel jacket, I think 1 in 5 broke). Also, what stops a paintball (thin wood, garbage cans, hell, twigs) will not stop real ammo. Paintball's fun but I don't think it can be used for an accuracy comparison, not from a statistical standpoint. Kill to shot ratios are just way too far off.

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, with how relatively slow paintballs are it becomes real hard to draw a line between getting someone to miss and dodging. Maybe running around like a maniac won't get you out of the way of a well-aimed bullet, but it might get someone to take a bad shot to begin with. Wouldn't want to bet on it though.

[Wounded Ronin]

Maybe it is because the target's head does or might move? Or other things move in the way or try stop you? In no way am I belittling the skill required for shooting on the range, or how that practice can help someone in the field. But there is a lot less going on at the range, a lot more unknowns (and danger) to handle/filter in the field, right?

Also, although I've not picked up the book yet (and do I plan to), the "failure" category might include just injuring rather than killing the target? That implies you must kill on the first shot (so realistically you need to make that headshot, square on like into the "snot cage" from the front, to have a good percentage, right?) or be able to adjust for the dynamics of follow-up target movement/dropping, defenders acting, etc. to land more shots to finish the job.

EDIT: Another possibility. Certainty is King. So most thought out plans involve getting in close. Ergo you are seeing a much higher percentage of "Plan B" (attacker has been prematurely detected or isn't sure WTF is happening because something unexpected occured) and/or adhoc/poorly planned/unplanned situations when the attack is coming from outside 25 ft.



-- -- -- -- --

As for simplicity I would rather have SR error on the side of cranking up the long range default TN/Threshold, and handle lowering it via the sprinkling of exceptions. Setting aside "realism" for the moment, from a strictly gaming POV I find the easy long shot that much of a drama killer. So I think it actually misses the "sweet spot".

Hmm, I guess if it were dark, and someone were sprinting and ducking, it would be relatively hard to BOOM HEADSHOT. The closest thing I come to that is shooting one of those spinning targets. Also your second point about plan B makes sense as well.