Works only in the movies, dude. IRL, Donny would have been shot dead, because the punk would point the gun at him and shoot when he lunges to grab his gun.


The gun is going to do the rape vic a fat load of good if it's the raper's gun at their forehead. You see, the equalising works two ways. And the dopehead might just shooot you because you MIGHT have a gun, anyway. Just so you don't shoot him n the back.


... because cars have uses other than committing crimes, yes - and yes, shooting someone in most cases is a crime. Self-defense isn't about gunning anyone down you think suspicious. If that dopehead never threatened you, it's murder second degree for you.

BAH! Donny just needs wired reflexes.

If you find them on amazon or dell, drop me a link, will you?

I'm still gunnin' for a Datajack!

Okay hermit, look at it another way.

If everyone (without a criminal record or is not mentally disabled) is given the legal right to bear firearms, and say someone tries to rape a girl. Yes he might have a gun, so would the girl. Maybe he gets the drop on her, maybe not. Maybe some other soul overhears the commotion and checks it out with his/her gun in hand. He/she sees the rape going on, shoots the perp.

The equalizing does NOT work both ways. You see, if the dopehead figures out that EVERYONE packs a piece, he might just decide to not do the rape/theft/mugging since he might get killed. On the other hand, if he does anyway, wouldn't you just love to have that gun with you when he tries it on you?

And yes, a close family member of mine was raped, gang raped in fact, in the university, by a bunch of drunk frat boys. The neighbors overheard it, but since they had no weapons, they were too scared to do anything.

Think of it that way, what if it was YOUR daughter? YOUR sister? YOUR WIFE? Wouldn't you wished that they at least had the means to try to defend themselves?

Hermit, I think you do not get that most crimes - by far the most crimes - are done with illegally acquired or carried weapons. All you would accomplish is making sure no one but criminals has guns. Your crazy neighbor would still have a gun. Your rapist would still have a gun. Your punk carjacker would still have a gun.

You, your family, your friend who likes target shooting, any other law-abiding citizen would not have a gun.

All you would be protecting and make safer would be the criminals.

Disarming good guys only helps bad guys. Period.

But it makes the hand-wringers feel like they're accomplishing something -- nevermind the violent crime rates in New York City, DC, Philadelphia, all over California, Detroit, Chicago -- so they just keep on passing stupid laws and making sure the law-abiding folks can't have a gun on them when they need one.

Uhm, no. He didn't. It's not as easy to get illegal guns over here than going to an arms fair in Virginia. If guns, illegal ones too (like I said above) are controlled tightly, it DOES make the environment a little safer. Moreso than when everyone is packing and we have an arms race spiraling out of control.


No, since you assume the dopehead will think rationally. He'd not be a dopehead to begin with if he did.


Assuming everyone has a gun, the frat boys would too, so the neighbours wouldn't help for fear of walking into a frat boy's shotgun fire when kicking in the door. No gain at all.


Prpably. That wouldn't be me rationally thinking then, though. Rationally, that'd only help if the perps would not have guns, or the relative would have lighning reflexes and a full tactical training under her belt.


Yes. I'd love it even more if he had no gun and wouldn't exist to begin with, though, so that's more my kind of approach - tight gun control and ensure work pays enough that no significant poor underclass that generates mugging, gun-toting dopeheads to begin withexists. Also crack down hard on illegal gun sales.


I'd love to have that link too ...

I know that if I were a crook (And I'm not), I'd follow the cops on "Guns are now illegal" day, see which houses the Cops raid to sieze firearms, and know just the places to hit in the near future.

Hey, and look, the cops even kicked the doors in for said criminals! Isn't that nice of the Jackboots?

Yeah. Blame the fact gun control laws don't work on "gun fairs in Virginia." Nevermind that less than 2% of firearms in America used to commit a violent crime are from gun shows or the imaginary "gun show loophole," the news said gun shows are evil places where you can stock up on all sorts of firearms and no one looks twice at you, so it must be true, right?

Should I better blame it on on nonexistent registering of fireamrs sales? Or maybe on gun companies selling to anyone, no questions asked? Maybe gun control doesn't work because there's lots of work doen to ensure it doesn't? You see, it does work in other countries, so the reason for why it doesn't must somehow be native to the States.

Right. Because, of course, you're the expert here about how gun sales work in the States, right?

All I can say is, if keep thinking that, you may sleep easier, but you'll still be wrong. Once you look into this (hint: Eastern Europe), you'll know that one can get guns easily, especially thanks to Schengen. If you want an illegal gun, you'll get one, easily. Especially if you're a criminal with contacts. But even without them, just go into the red light district, and ask around.

Also, you are wrong if you expect everyone to be packing just because they can. As I said, for decades, everyone could be packing in half my country, but rarely did so.

Gun control doesn't work, Hermit. All it does is keep police manpower from going after criminals by keeping them busy with enforcing gun laws. Criminals use illegal weapons anyway, mostly handguns because they are easier to conceal.

Either its not easy or you just don't know where to find the proper contacts.

Dopehead doesn't necessarily mean stupid you know, although admittedly most have room-temperature IQs.

I'd hate to live in your neighborhood then, since everyone is so afraid. In my area, we all pretty much are used to the idea that most of the neighborhood owns guns. Just a few months ago, a dopehead tried to rob 3 schoolgirls from a small school a few blocks from my house. Within 30 seconds, about 6 guys (corner store owner, 3 neighbors who were about to leave their homes, and 2 members of the neighborhood watch) had guns on him. Then the braniac tried to run.

You see, once you get used to feeling helpless, you stay that way. On the other hand, very few criminals get away from our area ... come to think about it, very few try to come in anymore. And yes, we do rotate duties being part of the neighborhood watch, 1 day every other month.

Even if the rapist had killed the girl, shoot him anyway. If enough rapists dies, and they keep on dying, pretty soon you'd have no more rapists (or at least those that are stupid enough to do it in the city.)

Ever read any history? Think of Prohibition ... that's right, outlaw booze and what happened? Same thing with anything people want or more importantly, feel that they need.

Then enlighten me, please. Why is gun crime so much more common in the states with it's highly armed, defense-capable populace than in countries where noone can defend themselves against all these heavily armed criminals?


The interesting part is that a ban on guns works in many countries (like Japan).


America would have to be pretty short on muderers by now if that reasoning applied. Actually, they ought to have died out long ago, since abolishing deaths entences is a very novel idea, historically.


In the seven years I lived in mine, noone attempted to mug anyone. Yeah, we're dead scared. So much we gotta arm up and form our own little milita for fear of muggers with obviously readily acvailable guns from muggers' market or whereever, because the cops can't do that job by themselves (which is why they get our tax money, after all).

No offense to you personally, but I see you treating symptoms of a disease that isn't going to get better with your approach.

It's not because of guns, or we'd have much more crime here in Switzerland. Also, most of the gun crimes in the US happen in areas (cities) where gun ownership is restricted, and are done, once again, by illegally acquired or carried weapons. You don't get much crimes in rural areas, where many are armed.

Maybe try to see the big picture, Hermit. Guns don't cause crime.

Look at where the gun crime takes place. Look at who's committing the overwhelming majority of the crimes. Look at what those people do for a living (or lack of one). Look at what other convictions those people have. Look at the folks who are usually the targets of their crimes, and the convictions those people have. When you're finished, and have painted the picture of who is committing most such crime and why, take a look -- a hard look -- at the gun laws in those areas, compared to the gun laws in other areas of the country where crime is much lower. You'll find the disarmed populace being preyed upon by the wolves amongst the urban flock, and a whole bunch of rural folks with a whole bunch of guns doing just fine.

Blaming guns for drug-related urban crime is like blaming pencils for bad test scores, or knives for emo kids cutting themselves. Stop blaming the tool, start blaming the person wielding it. It's not rocket science.

Illegal weapons get moved around and bought everywhere.

I grew up in Northern Ontario. In the only city in Northern Ontario, and there are Illegal guns there. There is, in fact, only a few gun stores in the city, most being Canadian Tire (A Huge Hardware Store Chain). And one small, hidden, out of the way place, and stocked with hunting rifles and a few pistols locked in a double-safe.

That said, fully-automatic weapons *HAVE* been siezed numerous times by the Cops. I've seen a few thanks to connections I had at the local Militia and the Museum they have at the Armoury, as a few of said weapons were of World War II "vintage" (One was a recently made Thompson Semi-Auto "SMG" that was illegally converted to Full-Auto.).

Now, that's in a fairly peaceful city when it comes to gun crime, so, thus, low demand. Sure, more than your typical percentage of brawls and knife fights, but what do you expect for a Mining City?

A city with a large demand? They'll get 'em in. Smuggle them in, ship them in, bribe Customs to get them in.

We play SHADOWRUN for frigs sake, and understand the basic idea of the "Black Market Economy" better than the average person. Sure that doesn't make us experts, but would you see your Street Sami buying a Ares Alpha from some Gundealer if he just picked it up from a Gun Sale, registered requirement or no, and it still had it's serial numbers on it?

No. More likely, we'd pick up some beat-up AK-98 that's been kicking from one end of the world to the next.

If we follow the "guns kill people, ban guns" delusion, we'll have to castrate all men to avoid rape. Same mentality.

Either you trust the majority of your citizens not to committ crimes, or you don't. But if you think everyone is a criminal, why allow them to vote?

Wish I could remember where this quote came from, and I'm sure I'm misquoting it:

"Cops tend to group people into three places: Brother Cops, Citizens, and Crooks. Brother Cops are the only ones you can trust. Citizens are the ones that need protecting. Crooks deserve nothing but what they get, and then some. Thing is, the longer you're on the job, the more blurred the line between Citizens and Crooks becomes, until all you care about are your Brother Cops."

So why again are most hard drugs illegal? By that reasoning, you can trust your citizens to responsibly handle anything.


The movie 'Colors', I think.

Here's a better question, why are some soft drugs ILLEGAL?

Because they have a strong rooting in western culture and religious practice (alcohol) or have been around for a long time, don't make anyone go mad and only damage the user (more or less, Tobacco). Also possibly because people occasionaly love to get wasted and will get pissy if they have absolutly no way to (which si why prohibition didn't work).

So, if we were to legalise guns for everyone, why not drugs?

This not having much to do with shadowrun, I don't feel like reading the whole thread so I'll throw my 2 cents in based on the first page.

From my personal experience (having several family members who have rap sheets as long as my leg) criminals purchase firearms off the street, but where do street guns come from? they're grabbed during home robberies. Why do they buy them off the street? Because it's registered to someone else and more importantly it's dirt cheap. Seriously would you rather pay 700-1200 bucks on a gun you're probably going to have to throw away, or 200? It's basic economics, the less you spend on the materials for the job the more crack you get. Anyways it's not like people robbing gas stations have a lot of money to begin with.

Merchants at gun shows (in the us) have a Federal Firearms License, this is required to deal arms in any form. One of the provisions of having an FFL is that every gun you purchase for inventory is registered to you, and a federal agency (can't remember which one) has the right to visit you at a random time once per year to confirm that every gun that is registered to you is accounted for. When the gun is sold the customer fills out a brief form, shows ID, and then a call is made to the FBI for a quick background check (and it is amazingly quick for anything federal), the check is passed, the serial number is read to the FBI guy and logged to you, and then the gun is handed over, and forms are mailed away to DC. The only difference between buying at a gun show and a gun shop is the price is usually cheaper (due to show merchants having far less overhead) and you don't have to wait 30 days for a handgun.

As for wally world playing big brother on gun sales, you can't walk 5' in that place without bumping into a tv screen trying to indoctrinate you into consumer slavery, it's already 1984 over there so go to Target


Ok I just scrolled down and saw Hermits post so let me just add this link because the whole article is very interesting but Section VI is particularly relevant saying



I live in Kennesaw, GA. A town that has become rather famous for the fact that we have a law stating that every land owner must own at least one firearm and ammunition (it was passed in 1982 btw and ammended in '83 to allow for conscientious objectors) and over 10 years burglary dropped 89% in Kennesaw. Some people have cast dispersions on our claim of lower crime but being wedged between two cities with drastically higher crime rates I think it works.

That being said, I will not come back into this thread because quite frankly I don't give 2 shits about what's said in here, this pops up every now and then and it has NOTHING to do with the game.

Based upon my country's experience (Needle park, anyone?), I fully support the legalisation of hard drugs, provided they are given out to addicts only, and measures are taken to make sure there's no fallout (driving under influence, etc.) from it.

It's better for the addicts, who can live like human beings and don't have to steal or sell their bodies to get money for drugs, and get safer and cleaner drugs as well, it's better for the rest of the population, who doesn't get mugged, robbed, or otherwise victimised by drug-addicts in need of money for more drugs, it's better for the cops, who have less work and can focus on other crimes, it's better for the country since there are less costs.

So, yes, legalise the drugs, or at the very least, give out hard drugs to addicts. It's better for everyone.

I'm leaving this thead now, with only a single statement from Jon "Money" Johnson.

"They can have my Browning, Colt, Kalish, and whatever else I got on me when they pry it out of my cold, dead, titanium reenforced hands! And you better believe I'll be surrounded by the dead attempters, and out of ammo when it happens!"

Because that would mean admitting the "War on Drugs" has been a pathetic, ridiculous, society-wrecking, failure, since day one.

50% higher? Would that then be a rate of 1.35 per 100000? And a whopping 1.755 for France? Well, then I guess my next vacation in France, it won't be so crowded anymore...

Just out of curiosity: what's the rate in the US?

That reminds me of an RPG scenario I heard about once. There was a big crime being planned, and a number of agencies/organizations heard about it and tried to get someone in. The end result was the entire team was made up of informants from different agencies, each of whom was sure that every other person was a criminal, and they were all planning/executing this crime and trying to stab each other in the back. It sounded like great fun.


Indeed. That word gets thrown around so much it's sickening. It's not "racist" to be aware of a true statistic. It's not racist to say that "group X is responsible for a disproportionate amount of action Y". It is racist to take that statement and add "...and this individual is part of group X, therefore I shall assume this person will perform action Y". A lot of people just don't get the difference.

And if there are no guns in homes to begin with, where would the guns then come from?


5,7 in 2006 (source)


Seconded, at least concerning addicts ... though controlled drug sales might help make the drugs market less lucrative for OC gangs.

From cops, soldiers, grandfathered-in firearms, other countries, they'd be hand-made (enough people know how)...get it into your skull, Hermit. Prohibition didn't work, and it isn't a Right (with a capital r) promised to us since our nation's founding.

There is positively no way anyone will ever take every gun of the streets of America without those same streets being painted red first. And even then, when the dust settles and the blood cools and everyone that stood up to keep their guns is labeled a "terrorist" by the wide that won (not coincidentally, it will be the side with the most, and the biggest, guns)...the losing side will still find ways to get ahold of, or create, firearms.

To fantasize otherwise is nothing but the most ridiculous of liberal make-a-wish'ing.

That'd drive the price through the sky, or require the US Army to really be a bunch of crooks, which, for all I know, it isn't.


Sure, guns will never go away, but having them controlled more tightly DOES work in other places (Switzerland being more of an exception to that rule).

Hermit, you don't get it: gun control is useless. It does not work. Your utopia of gun control required a police state of such proportions it'd make the StaSi organisation look like a bunch of kindergardeners.

You label every instance where guns are wide spread and no crime wave follow as an exception, and cite every instance where draconian gun laws are in effect but crime doesn't go down as an exeception, and draw the sick conclusion that we need more gun control?

That mentality leads to something really opposed to what western democracy stands for.

Again, will you advocate castrating all men next, to reduce rape cases? Your logic would demand it.

No. I look at countries where gun control has always been very strict (like Japan) and compare them to countries where owning a gun is considered a civil right (like the US) and see that the US has five times as many muders as Japan. Also, Canada and switzerland don't have notably lower crime rates than countries that don't hand out guns to everyone (like switzerland). So saying guns make crime go down is just wrong. Now, it would be right to say that widespread gun owndership doesn't have to drive crime up, but it does not give you any advantage compared to gun control countries, and it might gain you a serious rise in murders.

Also, those countries aren't less democratic than switzerland or the US. So where exactly do you get the idea that guns for everyone is a basic democratic principle from?


Uhm, no? It works just fine with much smaller secret services.


No, and repeating that doesn't make it less absurd.

In both cases, you ban something that is abused by a small minority from the whole population to pervent its abuses. If you can't see the parallels, you're blind. Castrating all men is the logical conclusion of banning all guns. It's not as if we need the things to live, and reproduction can be handled with artificial insemination, so why continue to let men be able to rape women?

See the parallel now?

Eh, sure. Because the vast majority of guns is used to shoot people consentually. Riiiight.

Maybe you should just drop that comparison. It's absurd.

Wrong parallel. "The vast majority of guns are used responsibly," would be the correct parallel, which is, incidentally, true.

How do you use a gun responsibly? Not at all? Then what would you need it for?

I know someone who says he arranged for a meeting between a soviet officer overseeing an essentially abandoned base and some right-wing Italians. Apparently some money changed hands and hundred tons of mortars, machine guns, ammunition, anti-tank rockets and bulk explosives got moved from eastern Europe to western Europe to await the coming threat to the true church.

To protect yourself, your friends, and your family? What else of course.

Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Preemtively (gun down any suspicious person close to your property) or do you wait for the potential threat to make the first move?

Ah, see, now we arrive at the crux of the issue. You think guns are just for "bad people" to kill "good people" and you don't see any other use. Or so it appears.
Yes, that's one of the ways. Another way is for hunting. Another way is recreational target shooting. Another way is not using it but keeping it (along with everyone else) as insurance against your own government, should they decide to be naughty. Another way is to kill someone who is attempting to kill you or your family. Another way (that requires lots of people to have them) is as a deterrent from other countries who might be thinking of starting trouble on your soil.

Whoa! Where the f(#& did that come from? Okay, this train is going to crazy-town, I wanna get off.

Depends on where you choose. In DC, where all guns are illegal, it's (2005) a mere 31.8. It's on the decline from the peak of 52.7 in 1995. In Utah, where they have the most liberal concealed carry rules in the US (state universities can't ban guns), it's 1.8.

Hoarding weapons to become a terrorist if the (democratically decided) policies of the country don't suit you? Sounds pretty responsible ...


Didn't save the country with the largest per person rate of firearms from a US or Soviet attack (Afghanistan).


It is. Doesn't require handguns though, at least hunting.


How do you determine someone is going to shoot you or your family? If he fires his gun, it's too late, and if he doesn't do you the favor of either trying to shoot you and yours with a rifle or beingt much of a talker before ... how do you determine that, if you don't plan to act on suspicion and hunches? HAndguns can be concealed quite well, after all.

A suspicious person close to my property will prompt me to clear my weapon for use (not draw it mind you, just make sure it is nearby).

A suspicious person ON my property gets shot. Of course, he has to go over the glass shard topped 4 meter wall first. That means he is breaking and entering. If I'm in a good mood, I'd only use the rock salt loaded shotgun shells, if not, then shoot to disable (knees and ankles are good targets). If he has a weapon of any sort in sight, I go for center mass, at least three rounds, probably because my favorite shooter now is a .22 that we are modifying for target shooting.

Anyways, is THAT how you look at gun owners? That we are a bunch of trigger-happy yahoo's? I'll have you know that part of the training that my mother drilled into me about guns is that you do NOT aim at someone unless you intend to shoot them. A responsible gun owner is one that knows WHEN to shoot (at the very least to not get into trouble with the law).

Hunh. And neighbouring countries liberally selling guns to DC gangsters obviopusly has nothing to do with that, all the guns used in DC are smuggled in from Eastern Europe, right?


The responsible part would be about who you shoot, too, if you ask me ... however, you live in Manila, right? If so, you live in a very different surroundings than a western state, so I can understand your point of view somewhat.

Alright, said I was getting off this thread, but I gotta get back on.

Want a reason for guns?

Fine.

My family would not be here without the family "Hunting Rifle", which was brought back from The War.

I know of more than one family that says the same. Many would have starved to death without being able to hunt with those rifles.

Advance a few years, and those kids then used those same skills used to save their families lives by feeding them in a Second War.

Now, it's been a few generations, and, luckily, $Diety willing, I never had to find myself in that position, neither have my parents. But the point was made to us, quite clearly.

Most of my generation forgot those lessons, but I'm glad and proud to say that I haven't. And I damn will teach my own kids them. I just wish I could teach them those skills, "Just In Case", or to give them a connection to their honored history.

A firearm is a tool. Nothing. More. It is as moral as it's weilder. No more, no less.

You want another weapon that's dangerous, and has killed even *MORE* people than firearms? KNIVES!!! They're big, sharp, deadly! And in EVERY HOME!!! Every one has at least one! Danger abounds!!! Stabbings happen every day!!!

LOOK! A Bread Knife! It's serrated, obviously designed to RIP flesh and prevent it from healing! AND THIS! AN ELECTRIC KNIFE! Military hardware of the most nefarious means!

And they're not neccessary either. I mean, food comes pre-packaged now in Insta-Portioned Packaging. Hey, add on a plastic fork, and you don't even need steel silverware! You could put an eye out with that, too!

Care to comment on those "Dangerous Weapons", Hermit?

Either I'm not explaining myself well, or you're just deliberately misunderstanding me to "prove" your point. If a government is following democratically decided policies, then it is not being naughty. If a president decides he would rather not step down at the end of his term and convinces enough of the military to back him and become a dictator-for-life, that would qualify as "naughtiness."

The singular form of data is not anecdote. When one of the largest, most powerful countries in the world decides to pick on a smaller, less-developed country, no amount of small arms will stop them, that doesn't invalidate the point.

Damn it I wish I'd been fast enough to quote that before you edited it. You know damn well what that crazy-town comment was about.