Are you an American? You do realize that the independence war was fought by militia using weapons that they owned to kick out King George III and his army right? Now imagine the same timeline, and George asks the colonies to disarm, and they obeyed like sheep. Would there even BE a United States of America?

Gotta love your history teacher Hermit. Afghanistan, during the time of the Soviet incursion, had a lot of gun weilding citizens, true, but what kind of guns? Mostly old .303 Lee-Enfields first fielded by the British Army BEFORE WWII, bolt action rifle vs. fully automatic assault rifles? In open battle? Forget it.

On the other hand, once the US gave the Taliban more modern weaponry (at the time), they were able to engage in a guerilla warfare that was devastating to the Soviets.

During the US attack, I believe they used even more sophisticated weapons, though they USA did take a fair amount of casualties.

Well, if he is on MY property, I'd classify him as an intruder and shoot at his legs. If he has a visible weapon and is on my property, shoot to kill.

And that's where your logic goes wrong. Keep in mind that guns do not commit acts of violence. So the first factor we must look at is the people. If we took a bunch of Japanese and a bunch of Americans and put them both in identical circumstances (like in prison). As you'll note, the rate of violence in American prisons is much, much higher than that in Japanese prisons. Alternatively, you make comparisons over time. Compare a city or country to pre and post gun control laws. After enacting gun control laws in the UK, gun violence spiked. Even while gun violence is gradually dropping, violent crime is still very high, much higher than pre-gun control. However, comparing pre-gun control London to pre-gun control NYC (as in, both countries have similar restrictions on guns, therefore guns can't be the cause), NYC had five times London's crime rate (that gap is closing now that London has restricted firearms). Or compare DC where basically all guns were made illegal and the city has since suffered 7 years straight of the worst crime it's ever experienced.

The first rule of statistics is, when comparing apples to oranges, you must standardize the data. Standardize based on some acceptable standard, then you'll have a strong case.

I'm living in the Philippines, but not Manila, the laws there restrict gun ownership too much, which may be a reason that crime is on the upswing there, maybe not.

It doesn't really matter though, wherever in the world I go, I would like the ability to protect myself and my own.

Yet another Dumpshock forum where two sides refuse to concede anything about anything, and go back and forth ad infinitum. And it's not even about Shadowrun! If you guys want to get anywhere, you're going to have to stop pretending like gawd is on your side and concede the other side's reasonable points, which will enable a consensus, or at least settle the dispute with both sides saying "I see your point, but I disagree." Because if that's not what we're working for, then it's just troll bait.

But...but....duty calls (don't forget to hover your mouse over the pic to get the tooltip, it's half of the joke)

edit: You're right, of course. I'm done here.

Troll bait? Where?

I need some for a huge Trog that owes me !

Actually...

You'd be surprised at how many folks will hesitate to actually pull the trigger, especially if they are expecting the person they're threatening to back down easily. Most folks who rob others don't actually WANT to use the weapon, they just want the loot.

Additionally, it takes about a quarter second to react to something for most folks, even if they are expecting it. So the mugger in this case was just an idiot for placing his weapon within easy reach of his victim.

This is why you stand at least five feet from the person you are threatening. You need that split second to react and then fire, and if you're closer you might not get it.


-karma

The enumerated right of Englishmen to keep and bear arms dates back to the 17th Century when Catholic King James II attempted to consolidate power by disarming all of the Protestants and arming Catholics. This led directly to the Glorious Revolution and the right of Protestant Englishmen to keep and bear arms was enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689.

In the Jim Crow South law were passed to restrict the ability of Negroes to own weapons and to leave them vulnerable to terrorism by Whites. This was calculated specifically to support a regime of racial inequality and keep the colored man down. Hell, 30 year ago if a drowned black man bound with heavy chains washed up on a river bank bank in the South law enforcement would wink, nod, and report it as a case of a nigger stealing more chains than he could swim with.

Similar disarmament of ethnic, political, or religious groups that are to be marginalized and oppressed has happened many times in many. Usually, it is part of systematic oppression. Sometimes, it is a prelude to genocide. Total disarmament of the populace by the government is just silly. An oppressive regime has much more to gain by instituting lopsided armament, where the groups that they support have guns and the ones that they want to marginalize don't. Such policies can easily be implemented through non-legislative bureaucratic procedure whenever firearms ownership is not an absolute right, simply by having the police systematically deny registration to members of the group to be oppressed while encouraging members of favored groups to obtain guns and making it easier for them to do so.


You shouldn't forget that the Afghanis kicks the Soviets' asses.

And did pretty darn good with those SMLEs. Just had to chose their battles a bit more carefully until US Support came in to help them.

Then Rambo showed up, and the war was over.

Right?

Yes, because the US liberally supplied them with stingers (that now are used against their own soldiers). Not because of the AK47s everyone had stashed away somewhere.


Okay. So the point you're trying to make is that, to keep one group from massacring all others is to arm everybody to the teeth? Yes, that works so well in a lot of pristine places, like Somalia, like Kongo/Knshasa, like the Cote d'Ivoire, like Georgia, like Moldavia, like Iraq, like Algeria ...

Yeah. That always works. It also worked in keeping Germany from first falling for Hitler and then declaring war on 90% of the world. Or Iraq from becoming the mess it now is. Or in making the kurdish regions in Turkey a more peaceful place. Or in ending the civil war in Columbia ... or in preventing the genocides in Dharfour and Rwanda ...

Or in making Soviet-free Afghanistan a nice place to live. Right?


Hell yeah. He brought them blue light, after all!

At the risk of invoking Godwin...

Check your history books. One of the first things that Hitler did after assuming (democratically elected, by the way) power was to disarm anyone who wasn't part of his party.


-karma

Actually, no, he first disarmed the communists (who had made the Frist Republic the mess it was). Hitler's rise to power was mainly on a ticket that everyone was fed up with all those mercenaries, insurgents and revolutionaries that general armament of the populace when the Reichswehr was disbanded brought. You might want to go check your own history books.

If you go back and read the thread, you'll note he's not just misunderstanding you. I mean, he actually, seriously used the "Won't somebody pleaseeee think of the children?!?" argument. His posts thus far read like he's interested in winning, not discussing.

It seems like that's what every gun control thread I read ends up coming down to though. More often than not, IME, it's the pro-control folks who want to win the discussion, but both sides are frequently guilty.

As for me, I wouldn't buy a gun at Wal-Mart. Hell, I don't trust the dvd player I bought there to work right all of the time so I am not going to buy a gun there.

Oh, so hermit is now a tactical expert! He knows all about how a hypothetical altercation *would* have gone down. Violent confrontations aren't chaotic and unpredictable. No, violence goes down by the numbers in a sterile and predictable way. If only we listened to Hermit all along!

ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG.

As is frequently the case in a polarized debate, no side is holding all the cards, and no side can claim absolute victory.

Crime is based on economic factors. Countries where people have opportunity are countries with low crime, irrespective of whether they have guns. I know the pro-gun and anti-gun sides don't want to hear this, because it makes what they perceive as a simple argument (guns are good vs. guns are bad) into an actual, messy, complicated, real-world issue. How do you lower crime rates? You sure as fuck don't do it by pressing the "yes guns" or "no guns" buttons. It's a complicated issue with a complicated solution, and I am tried of people trying to tell us that it's simple, and that they have the right answer.

Infallible legal expertise! The paperwork I filled out last time and the background check I paid a $25 dollar fee for didn't exist. HERMIT HAS LIBERATED ME FROM THE MATRIX!

It may have started out that way, but it certainly didn't finish that way.

It wasn't very long before the only folks with any serious firepower was the Nazi party.

Which is only smart, if you want to take over a nation. Make sure anyone who can oppose you isn't armed.


-karma

Yes, of course, Ronin. It's usually whoever behaves the most immature and idiotic who is right.

You're a perfect example of the responsible, mature and thoughtful person that your side of the argument tries to show the majority of gun owners being. Then again, you actually seem to be the minority ...


Nope, it was the Wehrmacht - the SA, the Nazi party's armed forces, actually were pretty much dismantled and it's leadership (who wanted to establish the SA as a party-affiliated army) murdered in 1938, as part of a deal between Hitler and the Wehrmacht higher-ups, to keep them from kicking Hitler off the throne.

The SS later was armed up too, but it was ultimatly put under the Wehrmacht High Command's authority.

Speaking of guns vs baseball bats...

i find it interesting that no admin have stepped in yet, and i dont recall when a post on this thread last talked about shadowrun...

compared to the interesting topic on german politics, this is like watching monkey flinging poo back and forth...

Yeah, so let's end this.

Happy celebrating your internet victory, pro-guns folk!

This thread seems to have little to do with Shadowrun and instead has devolved into more of a political argument. If non-gaming relevant posts continue further actions will be taken.

It can be for some people, especially those with less-than-perfect vision or those that use non-standard means of browsing Dumpshock.

Here's the thing though. There are thousands of members in the Dumpshock community, many of them quite active, and yet not one single person besides yourself feels the need to 'stand out' in such a dramatic and attention-grabbing manner. Most rely on the actual content of their posts to garner the attention they require, and those that feel the need to embellish this tend to use color rather than varying text size and font (other than for emphasis). I would have thought that the mere fact that more than one person here has politely asked you to try and fit in with the rest of the community would be enough incentive.

<<just red mod post>>

No, you're mistaken. It's whomever behaves the most *sanctimonious* that is right. Isn't that right, Hermit?

Wounded Ronnin, Hermit: Knock it off.

Hey look, Shadowrun!
What about arcologies? An arcology is big, but it few people actually come in and out, and those who do come through much more controllable checkpoints than some flimsy border. Arcologies have walls.
In an environment the size and "controllability" of an arcology, would "no guns" (or extremely few, so few that even criminals have a very hard time getting them) actually become an achievable option?
Could you use a desktop forge and some kitchen chemistry to make a passable firearm?

You could probably cook up a zip gun with household materials even without a forge.

Actually getting propellant would be problematic, unless you have access to chemicals. If you do, though, perhaps from gardening supplies, you could probably cook up some black powder.

It'd be likely a firearm only good for a couple of shots, however. Probably not all that different than French resistance had early on during WWII. Really crude stuff.

WITH a forge, you could turn out really nice firearms. With plastics tech by the 2060s, probably tough enough to stand up to a decent amount of use, too.

Again, however, it's getting propellant that's the issue. In an arcology it's likely the chemicals needed will be monitored fairly well.


-karma

Okay, I'll try to post this again...

While it would be hypothetically possible to restrict guns (and more importantly, ammunition), I don't think it would work, simply because you have all the upper management people who think the rules don't apply to them, and will go out of their way to make sure that's the case.

However, ultimately, I feel like gun control would be rather irrelevant in arcologies. With such a high population density, conventional violent crime is going to be very low. There aren't dark alleys to rob people in, and even if there were, where would the guy run? Guns won't be the weapon of choice in massacres (like Virginia Tech). The restrictive nature of arcologies means demolitions or gases (both available cheap on the street) will be more effective with less risk, and the good guys having guns doesn't help much to stop that. Having guns to rebel against a tyrranical government won't help much when the arc already has guys in military-grade gear on every corner and cameras in every room. Hunting? Yeah, right. So neither side is going to especially feel like gun control is such a hot issue any more. The exception would be for when travelling outside of the arcology. We're led to believe that self defense is pretty common in Shadowrun, so most people would have guns (or something similar) and they just wouldn't have any cause to use them once in the arcology itself.

To take it on a different spin, I DO think gun control will be an issue for the general public - but more like how it was forty years ago. The laws in place are meant to make it easy for rich humans to get guns (you must have a SIN and must pay the $200 license fee) and difficult for the poor metahumans to get them. The UCAS won't want guns banned, they just want to take guns out of the hands of the have-nots and put them in the hands of the haves (but I'm sure it would still be called 'sensible restrictions on firearms').

Well I suppose in ARCs since this is all short range you could get away with some kind of air gun with say a scuba tank to give you the pressure. I know paintball guns hurt like a when you get hit, and I could see a bit higher pressure, and some kind of say arrows as projectiles to give it the ability to kill. Though honestly in a gun free enviroments Mages and Adepts are probably going to reign like demi-gods over the gunless schmucks.

I think the exact opposite. Rich people don't live outside the law in SR4. They live cozy warm, ensconced in an impregnable fortress made entirely out of the law. The law, and a sensor net that would make the NSA drown in its own drool. Everywhere a rich person goes will be monitored by live security riggers, automated drones, and astral overwatch. AAA sec zones are not places where you can just walk through with a gun without suffering consequences. But you don't need a gun. There's a whole monolithic system in place to keep the guns out, so the rich don't need guns to protect them. Certainly UCAS will want to disarm the poor metas as much as possible, but those people are pretty much automatically disqualified by being largely SINless. For actual citizens, I don't think class will determine whether you can get a weapon, because getting a weapon leaves a paper trail. They don't need to worry about you using legitimately registered guns for crimes, because if you do they will know it was you.

I wouldn't see that many rich folks packing themselves, just like you don't hear about very many Hollywood types and politicians carrying around their own guns for day-to-day nonsense today. They have people to do that for them (and their people will be allowed to carry where no one else's people could, be it in an Arcology, a super-secure research lab, what-have-you).

One of the shrillest anti-gun celebrities in real life insisted a school make special provisions for her child's bodyguards to carry on school property (otherwise a federal offense), all while famously hand-wringing over how horrible Columbine was and barking about how crazy it was for anyone to propose teachers or faculty members or CCW-permit holders to want to be armed in a school. They aren't normal people like the rest of us and they don't have to follow the rules -- but they're much more likely to have professional security breaking those rules on their behalf, rather than packing a gun themselves.

It's a little long, but a friend of mine wrote out an excellent example on this point of view, and a likely manner in which a Shadowrun Corporation might try to enforce it in a round-about manner: The Gorilla Journalist Goes Ballistic

Personally, it's one of the funniest reads I've had in a long time, and I love the ending.

Why would someone who regularly breaks the law want to stay cosily ensconced in the law? If I'm a rich person and I want to go have sex with six-year-old orphans, capture protected animals for testing, shoot at humans for fun, do BTLs, beat my wife, blackmail my coworkers, steal data from competitors, etc. etc., wouldn't it then behoove me to make sure I have my own, private security setup and NOT depend on a security setup that is either managed by the corporation beyond my control or, even worse, by the 'law'?

Critias - I'm curious, who is the celebrity you are speaking of?

Most corporate sharks won't do any of those things. Or if they do, they will have some sort of black hole in the security net - they'll be surrounded by sensors detecting unsavory types, but those sensors will not be looking inwards. Kinda like Michael Jackson - he had a security camera so he could see the door to his bedroom, but there was no camera watching what was going on inside.

IIRC its Rosie O'Donnall.

Then you play a much kinder version of Shadowrun than I do...



Ah, but that doesn't help much if they can't get their stuff past the front door. And that is precisely what I'm talking about.

These rich guys don't WANT to be on camera, and in fact, they probably distinctly want NOT to be on camera. Just like they don't want to get put in jail if they are caught doing something naughty. Hence, their goal isn't to make 1984 (really, who profited from 1984? At least in Brave New World there was a tiny number of people who did very, very well for themselves), but to effectively return to colonialism. I was born into this position, therefore I can do whatever I want. Nothing you can do can get you to my position. And to preserve this, I am justified in denying you any rights appropriate.

I think you mispercieve who corpers are. Corporations are not about nepotism. That certainly exists, but corporations are about the primacy of the free market. The bottom line rules everything. Birthrights are antithetical to the bottom line, because they almost guarantee that some really incompetent people will get stuck in the high ranks, and that is bad for business. Corporations aren't kingdoms, they are enterprises. Again, that's not to say there isn't nepotism. But people don't rise to the highest echelons without deserving it. They might deserve it by being bad people, what with backstabbing and maneuvering and suchnot. But they are not looking for a nouvlesse world where they can be decadent not have any rules apply to them. They are looking for a world where any corporate climber can rise to a position of power, and every climber is trying to climb on every other climber. There are strict rules, but they're there to be broken -- those who best use the rules against their compatriots, and don't get caught breaking them, are the ones that deserve power.

If they had a system like you describe, they would all get drugged up and their corps would tank and they would not rule the world, because some leaner, meaner, non-high adversary would gobble them up. Of course the high-ups want to act to preserve their positions, but the free market will take control. In the free market, those corps with worthless people at the top will not survive. There is no global corporate conspiracy to preserve privilege for the privileged. That would imply that the top corpers can actually stand to conspire with each other. They can't. That's why instead of having a monolithic global government, Shadowrun has a balkanized corp-eat-corp world where, every single day, the corps send waves of hired killers against each other in secret. Each corp is engaged in a cold war with each other corp, and the one that doesn't stay sharp is the one that will topple and be devoured. And the one that doesn't stay sharp is the one that you describe: where the leadership feels like it has special rights and keeps others out. The smart corp will use aggressive recruitment programs to sift every metahuman it can through its sieve, hoping to find some gold nuggets who will work for the corp and give it a competitive edge with their superior performance. Class is nothing. Everything is merit, and ruthlesness, and a healthy obsession with profit. Of course people born into corporate families will have a much easier time, because they'll go to the right school, learn the right skills, get the right headware (in beta or delta grade) and be in the best position to compete for the jobs they want. But the real king of Shadowrun is not some insular class of bluebloods. It's the harsh mistress of the free market itself.

'
Plan C
accept that Australia has a much higher rate of violent crime than the US

EDIT: fixing link

Ironically in Australian police culture, a baseball bat is a foreign sporting implement, not a deadly weapon

Strawman fallacy

Even if less guns = less gun related crimes
the real question is do less guns mean less violent crime

to give you a hypothetical
city a has 200 gun based murders and 50 knife based murders a year
new gun laws remove many guns
2 years later city a has 20 gun murders a year, and 250 knife murders a year

see the problem yet?

Shoulder holster?

Kremlin: your link above is broken.

But here's some fun with numbers for any interested. Be sure to use the "per capita" tab.

The admins came on and told you guys to knock off the vitriolic argument about RL gun control. It might be a good idea to not ignore them.

*gives Method a gold star*

The same moonbat that says she was so upset over Columbine that she started sleeping hanging upside down by her ankles, who organized the Not-Quite-Really-A-Million-But-Close-Enough Mom March, who lied to Tom Selleck about how an interview on her show would stay on-topic to plug a new film of his (but then ambushed him and blamed him for the NRA and the NRA for Columbine) and all sorts of other anti-gun nonsense... then asked for her bodyguard to be allowed to carry a firearm on elementary school property, because she and her family deserves to be protected by a firearm (it's just everyone else's family that shouldn't have them). I can't carry when I go back to college in the fall, I can't carry once I start teaching when I go to work every day -- but her family can be armed on school property.

Eew, she made a family?

Adopted three or four, and got her wife turkey-basted with another.

Is one of those kids the Trendy African Kids that seem to be the popular accessory for celebraties today?

i feel conflicted as i could not help myself but laugh at canray's comment...