[X] My Assistant

[Caadium]

Meh, I think there must be a statistic somewhere that people defending their homes with a potentially lethal response have a higher chance of in turn getting shot/killed by an intruder.

On the other hand, I do understand where the sentiment is coming from. Statistically, it might be safer to not defend yourself, because that way you might lose your stuff, but not your life, BUT in those cases where the loss of life was the goal, then being able to defend sure seems like a better alternative.

Now IMHO the best argument for gun control is stilll that, in all those areas where the general crime rate is low, your gun-toting spouse is the most likely person to kill you.

The other is that a violent response to a violent crime could very well trigger another violent response from another person who believes that in fact the initial response was the crime itself.

For instance: assume you are armed on a street and hear a shooting, with likely as not several shooters, around the corner. Then a guy with a gun in hand comes running around the corner. What do you do?

My post was not referring to a person defending their home. But rather to the earlier statement that basically equated all criminals to killers. My point was that just because someone is a criminal does not mean that they are ready to cross that line. Even a criminal that is carrying a firearm that they plan to use in their crime, such as armed robbery.

When it comes to self defense people tend to act based on instincts and are less concerned with long therm ramifications at the moment. That changes what they will or won't do in the moment.

[Warlordtheft]

My post was not referring to a person defending their home. But rather to the earlier statement that basically equated all criminals to killers. My point was that just because someone is a criminal does not mean that they are ready to cross that line. Even a criminal that is carrying a firearm that they plan to use in their crime, such as armed robbery.

Point being the victim does not know the criminals intent. Is it to rob, rape and kill? Or just a few of those? And would a criminal lie about his/her intentions?

Back OT---My guess is that the corps would use runners for unannounced visits where the legal costs outweigh the cost of just hiring runners to dump the person at a nearby corporate facility (or mutually agreed location). Usually in the low life style areas or worse. Those jobs of course would be more like bounty hunting than shadowrunning.

[Wounded Ronin]

I see potential in an urban bounty hunter game. It could be like SWAT 2 where you manage your own SWAT team.

[Snow_Fox]

to respond to theo riginal idea,
I'm a woman
I RL have a concealed carry permit
I carry.
I go to the range regulalry. if I'm going to carry a weapon I requiremyself to be proficent with it. anything less is irresponsible.

I've commented in enough threads her that for women the problem is less carrying a weapon than it is having some where to carry as our fashion is not as accomadating as men's clothing.

I live in Pennsylvania now which is very gun friendly and it is hard to get liquor. I use to live in NY where it is easy to get a drink and hard to get a gun, as others have discussed.

my standard line has been:
New York would rather have you drunk than armed.
PA would rather have you armed than drunk. I'm a New Yorker.

[CanRay]

Sorry Snow Fox, I really derailed us this time. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Brainpiercing7.6...]

to respond to theo riginal idea,
I'm a woman
I RL have a concealed carry permit
I carry.
I go to the range regulalry. if I'm going to carry a weapon I requiremyself to be proficent with it. anything less is irresponsible.

I've commented in enough threads her that for women the problem is less carrying a weapon than it is having some where to carry as our fashion is not as accomadating as men's clothing.

You needz the elan with stick&shock (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

[Sengir]

What people tend to forget when discussing the deterrence value of small arms: Guns are portable valuables. Flashing your modded Predator (or expensive cyber, drones, foci...) might scare off some gangers, but it might also give them ideas about taking said weapon from your cold, dead hands.

[Wounded Ronin]

What people tend to forget when discussing the deterrence value of small arms: Guns are portable valuables. Flashing your modded Predator (or expensive cyber, drones, foci...) might scare off some gangers, but it might also give them ideas about taking said weapon from your cold, dead hands.

I just had this conversation with someone the other day. If I have a visible firearm I would be prioritized as a target, and if someone is surprise attacking me, he can probably kill me if he plans it out right.

So, when I think about this in relation to role playing games, I guess it means that random gangers attacking player characters would probably prioritize their attacks on whomever appears to be the most heavily armed. As a GM, I think sometimes there's a certain amount of feeling that in order to keep things fair you should have enemies attack all the player characters. But when you think about it, they should probably prioritize whomever looks scariest and try to take that person down as fast as they can.

[pbangarth]

But when you think about it, they should probably prioritize whomever looks scariest and try to take that person down as fast as they can.

Absolutely. NPCs are not stupid... well most of them aren't. Take down the worst foe right away, before he can kak you back.

This is the way NPCs work in my games.

[PittsburghRPGA]

I RL have a concealed carry permit
I carry.
I go to the range regulalry. if I'm going to carry a weapon I requiremyself to be proficent with it. anything less is irresponsible.

I live in Pennsylvania now which is very gun friendly and it is hard to get liquor. I use to live in NY where it is easy to get a drink and hard to get a gun, as others have discussed.

Sadly Snow_Fox, you live on the wrong side of Pennsylvania, or I'd be doing my impression of Slammo! hitting on NetCat. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

6 hours (ish) each way is a bit much of a drive even for a gamer girl who shoots. Are you on the PAFOA.org forums too?

Cordially,

Eric

[HunterHerne]

Absolutely. NPCs are not stupid... well most of them aren't. Take down the worst foe right away, before he can kak you back.

This is the way NPCs work in my games.

Same with mine, but sometimes, you just need to split them. In a recent fight scene my Players got into, I had two grunts on the roof, and the PC mage levitated herself and the adept to the roof. She didn't see the orks, so she dropped the adept right in front of them. I opted that one would distract the adept in melee (Adept had a P-93, grunt had plastic bones), while the other moved away and shot the mage.

[Caadium]

Same with mine, but sometimes, you just need to split them. In a recent fight scene my Players got into, I had two grunts on the roof, and the PC mage levitated herself and the adept to the roof. She didn't see the orks, so she dropped the adept right in front of them. I opted that one would distract the adept in melee (Adept had a P-93, grunt had plastic bones), while the other moved away and shot the mage.

It's also important to remember that different NPCs will evaluate the level of threat posed by PCs differently. Without cyberscanners handy, or assensing the PCs all the time, NPC groups will be left to judge based on the actions and appearances of the PCs.

Not to mention, different NPCs will use different tactics anyway. One group might think, "Geek the small squishy guys first so we can concentrate on the big tough things." Others might use the, "Kill that fraggin' Troll now," mentality. Or any number of other options.

I find that in most situations the PCs help me to determine the target based on rough ideas I've got for the NPCs. That gives them tactics appropriate to the NPC group, but also keeps the PCs from knowing what to always expect.

[darthmord]

In Real Life, the bad guys typically choose another target if their first target is armed.

Why?

Because if they miss / screw up, they will be the target, typically of the person they tried to shoot and/or that person's friends.

Again, it's safer (and less risky) to go after unarmed opponents or ones who don't look like they can be threatening if armed.

[HunterHerne]

In Real Life, the bad guys typically choose another target if their first target is armed.

Why?

Because if they miss / screw up, they will be the target, typically of the person they tried to shoot and/or that person's friends.

Again, it's safer (and less risky) to go after unarmed opponents or ones who don't look like they can be threatening if armed.

Doesn't always apply, though. Sometimes you want to send a message, so you go after the toughest group around. Otherwise, yeah, it makes the most sense to go after the softest target you can.

And doesn't apply at all if they are attackign you. Then you hit the toughest and most dangerous SOB and be done with it.

[CanRay]

Sadly Snow_Fox, you live on the wrong side of Pennsylvania, or I'd be doing my impression of Slammo! hitting on NetCat. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

You'd offer to take her on a date unless she was already seeing the toaster?

Doesn't always apply, though. Sometimes you want to send a message, so you go after the toughest group around.

Like beating up the biggest mo'fo in a prison yard?

[HunterHerne]

Like beating up the biggest mo'fo in a prison yard?

Pretty much, yeah. Once he goes down, either everyone hits you and you don't live long enough to care, or everyone backs off.

[CanRay]

Mental Note: Don't go to prison.

Additional: Stop writing and speaking out mental notes.

[pbangarth]

Mental Note: Don't go to prison.

Best advice you can give yourself.

[Wounded Ronin]

In Real Life, the bad guys typically choose another target if their first target is armed.

Why?

Because if they miss / screw up, they will be the target, typically of the person they tried to shoot and/or that person's friends.

Again, it's safer (and less risky) to go after unarmed opponents or ones who don't look like they can be threatening if armed.

Yeah, but in your game that would translate to them not attacking the player characters. If they do attack the player characters, it wouldn't make sense to pile on the Face while the big cybered guys with enormous firearms shoot you in the back of the head.

[ravensmuse]

I just had this conversation with someone the other day. If I have a visible firearm I would be prioritized as a target, and if someone is surprise attacking me, he can probably kill me if he plans it out right.

So, when I think about this in relation to role playing games, I guess it means that random gangers attacking player characters would probably prioritize their attacks on whomever appears to be the most heavily armed. As a GM, I think sometimes there's a certain amount of feeling that in order to keep things fair you should have enemies attack all the player characters. But when you think about it, they should probably prioritize whomever looks scariest and try to take that person down as fast as they can.

Kind of building off of this post, I've been reading the Aztlan book of late and I've hit the section where they talk about carrying in Aztlan proper. Keep in mind that this is for 2055 or so, so it's a little dated...

The general idea there seems to be that sure, you can carry whatever you want, but there are two things that work against you: the cops will probably be carrying gear manlier than what you're carrying, and they're not afraid to escalate and thusly, kill nearby civvies. Cause Aztlan law says all of the collateral damage is your fault.

Kind of puts a damper on the joy in toting around a mini-gun, doesn't it?

[Daylen]

I just had this conversation with someone the other day. If I have a visible firearm I would be prioritized as a target, and if someone is surprise attacking me, he can probably kill me if he plans it out right.

So, when I think about this in relation to role playing games, I guess it means that random gangers attacking player characters would probably prioritize their attacks on whomever appears to be the most heavily armed. As a GM, I think sometimes there's a certain amount of feeling that in order to keep things fair you should have enemies attack all the player characters. But when you think about it, they should probably prioritize whomever looks scariest and try to take that person down as fast as they can.

Documented incidents indicate that for the most part criminals simply choose another target, sometimes much later as well because it takes time to get back into the right frame of mind. In places like chicago/detroit there have been incidents where police have been targeted for their weapons; but so far I have yet to hear about any nonLEOs targeted as such.

IRL I OC at times, but in game I would never OC and don't understand why anyone would. It brings attention from law enforcement in basically every area that SR normally happens and what PC wants LEOs asking for his SIN and licenses and permits (whether needed or not).

[Daylen]

Kind of building off of this post, I've been reading the Aztlan book of late and I've hit the section where they talk about carrying in Aztlan proper. Keep in mind that this is for 2055 or so, so it's a little dated...

The general idea there seems to be that sure, you can carry whatever you want, but there are two things that work against you: the cops will probably be carrying gear manlier than what you're carrying, and they're not afraid to escalate and thusly, kill nearby civvies. Cause Aztlan law says all of the collateral damage is your fault.

Kind of puts a damper on the joy in toting around a mini-gun, doesn't it?

Talk about a 180, from no carry to anything goes!

[Snow_Fox]

In rl most street meat criminals see a gun as posturing to be repsonded to. If you point a weapon at them they will most likely not back down, they aren't that smart, but see it as a challenge to me met, so if you're going to draw, do it with the full knowledge you're going to pull the trigger, anything else, and you're an idiot. In my years carrying I've had my hand on the gun a couple of times. I've drawn it twice. The person each time was unaware of their danger but they were in that zone that I was ready. I've never had to point it at someone.

The saving grace is that most street meat go gangers aren't very good shots. Look at the news when idiots hit bystanders because they can't shoot straight and so on.

[pbangarth]

The saving grace is that most street meat go gangers aren't very good shots. Look at the news when idiots hit bystanders because they can't shoot straight and so on.

Heh. Saving grace for the intended target. Not so much for the bystander.

[Snow_Fox]

Since I'm assuming I'm the intended target....