If you are judo guy, how do you do your patented throw/pin/strangle when the guy is 12 feet away? I suspect you have to close to contact. Somewhere in there you are going to be almost able to touch him and he's going to almost unable to miss you.

I've been doing karate for 6 years. I don't feel confident that I could succeed in fight with a thug whose younger and likely better than me.

After two weeks of formal training and an hour of practice one day a week I feel a LOT more confident in using a Glock for defense. I've done a lot more training after that, but nowhere near as much time as I have spent in karate, though it has been a lot more expensive.


The guy has a knife. It's 6 inches of really sharp cutting surface. What do you THINK he'll be doing when you try to grab him? Put on light colored clothes, get a rubber training knife, cover the edges and tip with dark ink and give it to a training partner. Offer him $50 if you can't take the knife away without him "cutting" you. Now try to disarm him.

You are not legally justified in using deadly force unless he's threatening and capable of killing, severely injuring, committing rape, or something on that scale. I'm not going to start something. But if they want to start the music I know how to dance. What happens there is determined by what they do. I may feel sad, but "better that your friends bring you tobacco in jail than bring flowers to your funeral."

The effectiveness of defenses that don't amount to deadly force are pretty low. The only thing that seems to be highly effective are properly employed tasers in 'dart' mode, and cops who have them normally will not use them against someone with a knife unless they are covered by another cop with a gun because they are NOT 100% effective.

If you really are a lot better at fighting than the guy on the street you might be able to win, but a lot of street thugs do train and have lot more experience in real fights than most martial artists. Which is why they tend to kick black belts asses in real fights.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/pistolc96broom.../operations.asp

Yeah.

But, more importantly, stripper clips are commonly used to load detachable magazines for both pistols and rifles. It is far quicker than loading magazines by hand, and you don't have to worry about loose cartridges that way.

http://www.cedhk.com/show.php/Object894

Notice how the cartridges slide off the clip and into the magazine.



If I lived in Australia, I'd carry an assault cannon with me, just in case I ever ran into this guy.

The Mauser is interesting. As I said earlier though, I am quite familiar with the mechanism itself. I merely do not think it is very commonly used for pistols, as I have never seen it done, nor heard any reference to their use in this manner with regards to pistols.

So, are you denying that the definition I provided actually describes detachable box ammunition dispensers?

Yeah, knives are serious business. My father recently remarried, and it was to a filipina whose older brother is in the Philippines Special Forces. He practices Arnis, has some interesting scars and to this day cheerfully admits that his grand strategy for knife defense basically boils down to "When you get cut, make sure it's in the arm."

growing up in the barrens can make person see anything as a potential enemy...

more correctly, the outer arm, probably.

knifes are like the claws of a big cat, and the human body have had to deal with those for a long long time.

as such, all vital parts have been moved to spots that should be hard as possible to reach. that is as long as you face your enemy.

Remember kids, wrist in when blocking a knife (so they don't slit your wrist). Wrist out when doing anything else (so you're less likely to break bones in your own arm). It was one of the toughest things for me to pick up in my Kali classes. It's such a reflex to try to "catch" things that are coming towards you (turn your palm towards the incoming attack) I got my imaginary wrist slashed an awful lot of times when sparring with stick and open-hand stuff.

Re: Magazine/Clip. This retarded argument is exactly why I said "nevermind" a page ago. Language changes, but those of us that know the real right way to say things can still wince when we hear the "new" right way to say something. A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth. I flinch when I hear people ramble about "clips" as much as I flinch when I hear the news, or a politician, babble about "assault weapons" and use that term wrong.

I can start calling the ammunition holder and loader for a handgun a full slice of pie, and even if it catches on I'd fully expect people to occasionally protest.

In German, we use "Magazin" for both "magazine" and "clip".

(Waiting for the Army to finish converting my Stgw 90 assault rifle to semi-auto, and send it back to me (we get to keep our military-issued rifles over here, once we've finished our service in the army). In the meantime, my M686 will have to do for home defense.)

A guy I know watched a fight between a karate guy and a guy with a knife. The karate guy took a stance, then kicked at the knife, the knife guy moved the knife out of the way and opened his leg like a zipper. Then knife guy finished his drink and went out the back door while overconfident karate guy lay on the floor screaming and trying to stop the bleeding.

The key difference is that the magazine feeds the weapon but the clip feeds the magazine. It gets confusing if you call both "clips".

I understand that, and freely admit that those used to be the proper designations at one time. That is clearly not the case anymore however. I really don't think that there is that much confusion when actually discussing or referencing specific weaponry. As far as I am concerned, the only confusion I have ever encountered in this area comes about from people trying to 'correct' something that needs no correcting.

Hi,

All I know is that there are two choices with either a gun or a knife. Either you shoot/stab or you don't. No amount of kung-fu or posturing is going to protect me when you decide to take the first option. My only option between being whole and the hole is where I wish to get shot/stabbed. In a mortal situation I do not see coming I will freeze and most mortal situations I don't see coming.

Whether or not I go down with option 1. is dependent on two things: whether it is a sensible option or not. At that point though we are talking about so many variables that it is a choice my body will make, not a choice I have the luxury at a table to think about.

When I was reading this thread I kept on thinking of Jack Kirschenbaum, a boss I had ages ago. When he was 17 he still didn't have a car so one night he was out hitch-hiking from his girlfriend's place. After a bit of waiting with his thumb out a car stopped and picked him out. It was a nice thirty something guy and they end up chatting away. After a while the guy turns to Jack and says "Would you have sex with me?". Now most guys at this point would break the beer bottle on the dashboard and stab at him with it, or forcing to stop the car and beat the shit out of him. What he did was said. "No." The guy shrugged and took him near his house.


I think this whole thread shows that male posturing. I don't find guns cool or sexy in as much as a nice set of tools are. Guns are for killing humans and they do their job very well. Nothing less - nothing more.

I think I speak for all men when I say guns are just metal penises. Some men even like to whip it out and see who's is bigger.

Guns aren't just metal penises. Those of sufficient bore size can also be metal vagina. With a small-caliber rifle, a large-bore shotgun, a video camera, and some lubricant one can make gun porn. And I think that that is sufficient proof that guns are, in fact, sexy.

I don't think that most guys would do any bottle-breaking as a result of a proposition from a man. Most guys know how it is, and though the question might result in some awkwardness, it would be hard to find fault in it. A simple "I don't swing that way" is the most likely response.

And if you tell someone to use the clips to load the clips, you'll probably just get a confused look. It is a problem that comes up with you use the same term to refer to two different things that are used together.

You have got a futur as politician here in Italy .

Just to tell the mine on the clip argument, the first term for the thing that I've ever heard is "caricatore" (letteral translation would be loader), the first time I've seen the word "clip" was the first time I played Doom 2 (good times), when I've seen the word "magazine" I wasn't sure to have got it right: I was associating it to the italian word "magazzino", which is translated as "warehouse" ("ok, it IS used to contain ammunitions but can't they use a name different than the one of a building?"; silly me ).
I've learned the difference betwen clips and magazines only recently, when Tachi (here on dumpshock) explained me the exact meanings of the two words; he also said that the knowledge of the different meaning is pretty much required only in the tests that in-training gunsmiths are put trought, and that the word "clip" can basicaly used for magazines assuming that meaning due to the context in which it's used (I could have misuntherstood everything thought, my english is not that good).

Both the detachable magizine and internal magizine are magizines. Stripper clips is the correct term for the bullets feeding device for the broomhandle mauser pistol (circa 1890's). Note that Stripper clips are still used today for loading magizines as the last thing you want to have to do in middle of combat is load each bullet by hand. You can be non specific and call them both clips, but nowadays when people refer to things as clips they are often referreng to detachable magizines (as stripper clips got regulated to the military for the most part).

Yeah, mostly my new uncle was trying to get across the idea that against anyone worth worrying about, you're probably going to get some kind of cut. Basically, his internal monologue is something along the lines of "Oh please god, not the kidneys!"

I think the fact several people have disagreed with you and have given examples of 'clips' in magazines shows there is ample case to say the two terms today still mean different things, at least they do to the serious gun bunnys. It might be better to say among a lot of people it makes no difference but around the hard cases it is an issue. The problem would be if in a fight along with one of these hard cases, you call out for a 'fresh clip' and they throw you just that.

kzt, just get used to it. Everyone outside (and a lot of people inside for that matter) of the US think that people here carry guns around because we have a hankering for some Wild West action or are walking around in the hopes of a chance to attempt a reenactment of some classic Dirty Harry scenes. All without any sort of legal or financial repercussions, of course.

The secrets that they don't realize (or refuse to accept) is that unprepared people get dead, life isn't fair, the government really isn't there to help you more often than not, and that Starship Troopers was 100% correct in stating that raw naked force has done about 1000 times more to shape history than all of the negotiating, cooperation, and compromise of the world.

They have a knife.

I have a pistol w/ two spare magazines, a knife, an impact weapon/flashlight, and will and the training to use all three to the purpose of mayhem and general unpleasantness.

Seems fair to me...

After thinking about this thread and the few (hundred) I've read or been involved with I'm getting the idea that "Disruption" is probably a much better description that "Knockdown" for discussing the effect of terminal ballistics.

Whereas several people have also agreed with my position, which I proceeded to back up with definitions from several dictionaries. And even a couple of those very same people that have argued against my position have acknowledged that the English language changes and adapts words and terminology quite frequently, and that 'clip' is now an acceptable term.

By the way, I know a fair number of what you would call 'serious gun bunnies' or especially 'hard cases', and none of them would be at all confused, even for a second, when asked to throw you a clip, as they would all know full well what weapons you are currently carrying.

http://www.tabletownonline.com/grunts054.html

The English language changes; technical nomenclature does not. You wouldn't refer to a flask as a beaker in a labrotory setting, as doing so can be dangerous, and you wouldn't refer to forceps as clamps during surgery, as doing so could get someone killed.




Actually, the word magazine is derived from a word meaning "warehouse". It originally referred to the location where powder and ammunition for artillery (particularly naval artillery) was stored, back when multi-shot weapons didn't exist. In fact, the term magazine is still used by the Navy for the location where they store ammunition on ships.

I did not say that there were not people who agreed with you, only that there were some who did not. Which means there is a possible point of confusion. you had said there was no confusion. The fact different people are saying different things shows that statement by you was not correct and so the polite debate may go on.

Yes, that's why over here in Europe we all die young. We get killed by someone with a gun regularly. I know this sucks, but we aren't true men so we can't carry guns around. I still wonder how I got home alive tonight. I mean, I didn't carry a knife and event my nails aren't sharp!

(I'm just kidding, I don't want to start a flamewar here, everyone is entitled to his opinion.)

Just as something to think about: Switzerland has tons of weapons in civilian hands, among them hundreds of thousands of assault rifles. And we are arguably the safest country in europe - at least no country with a much stricter weapon law is as safe as we are. So, weapon bans do not make anyone safer.

Somewhere there was a webcam aimed at loaded handgun laying on a counter. He was hoping to catch the moment when it leaped off the counter and started shooting by itself, because we all know how guns cause violence. Last I checked it hadn't moved.

I found it: Smith & Wesson Gun-Cam™

I was just thinking of Switzerland when this argument about gun control came up, when I was there I was shown the assault rifle my friend kept upstairs that he recieved after his military service, I asked...

"So how many Swiss citizens are similarly armed?"
"I don't know, maybe all or half, I don't know for sure"
"So there's a shitload of guns in Swiss hands?"
"Yeah we are an armed populace"
"What's your gun crime rate"
"Ummm I think four people died from guns last year, three were suicide and the other was shot by somebody but the person who did the shooting wasn't Swiss."

The idea that guns are inherently bad or prone to violence is silly. The majority of the murders done in the Rawanda genocide was done with machettis. Sure guns are dangerous and a responsible gun owner ought be respectful of that danger and treat a gun thusly, but given the prevalence and existence of guns its incumbent on a populace in order to maintain its freedom to arm themselves so that they can both defend their country from extra-territorial aggression and to be able to rebel if the government turns against them. I'm going with the framers on this one.

Guys back on topic please, gun ownership or not is so not a topic we are going to settle here, all you'll succeed in doing is closing the thread.

for me its a mental separation between a long weapon that you cant just hide under a shirt or in a pocket, and those that you can.

Two things:
First: while Switzerland is located in the european continent it's pretty much an island, it isn't part of the European Union, it still has the frontiers (at least I think), it didn't take part in any major event of the last century, they mind their own buisness and let other do the same; they are somewhat isolationists (disclaimer: this ismy perception on the matter) and their culture is different from the ones of other countries (so what applies to Switzerland doesn't applies automaticaly to the rest of Europe).
Second: realisticaly Switzerland does not have to fear any invasion anytime soon. They are surrounded by friendy countries which have left them alone when the rest of Europe was engulfed in the flames of war, there aren't any resource that would justify a military action against them, and the terrain makes the operations (for both combat and logistic) a true nightmer; is this what protectes Switzerland from invasion? No, it the bankes that do. Just think how many important people around the world have money in swiss bankes, if anyone invade Switzerland they are going to see their money disappear, so there is alot of countries (including all the Europe) that would try to prevent it, so in order to invade Switzerland you need to wage war against the European Union, which implies the NATO, and most likely have the United Nations bring down some heavy ecomical hammer on your head; the last two World Wars didn't dare to touch Switzerland for a reason, the same reason that would cause another world war (even if a one-against-the-world one) if anyone tried.

And for the need of weapons, I think its better to eliminate the causes of the crime than arming people, you know there are time that even the calmest of men/women wishes to kill someone, being armed makes easy to go from a fleeting wish to actual action. And yes I've never had a weapon and I don't feel the need for it; you know, Europe.

Back on the topic: I think the rule is OK, maybe instead of if damage > body it should be a body + willpower (damage) test to avoid being knocked down.

In SR3, I had wished that there were more explicit rules for Knockback. Because Knockback (as opposed to Knockdown) is actually the only way you can launch a player character off the top of a tall building. That kind of crap is just too much fun to not be able to happen as hardcore codified in some rules.

Not even joking.

BTW, I honestly thought that everybody knew that.

Finally, IMO someone should be really good at combative sports before carrying a firearm for self defense. If you're going to be attacked by surprise on the street or wherever, your attacker would try and surprise you and attack at very close range. Therefore you need to be in great physical shape, work out with weights for extra strength, and practice legit combat sports (plural) with lots of hard sparring or else the guy attacking you will just take your gun away when he sees you try to draw it in response to his initial attack.

Now, if you wanted to go and assault some place, like storm a house for some reason, that would be less important since you could attack from a distance, and the most important thing would be to have a rifle or shotgun or something.

But if you're going to walk around waiting to be jumped hand to hand combat skill and physical strength are going to make the difference between whether or not you can successfully deploy and operate a handgun at all in the first place.

IMO.

You're a fool if you try to deploy a handgun in hand to hand. Rolling around on the floor with a goon punching your face in is the wrong time to decide you need to shoot him. I know some approaches for doing really close range shooting, but they are highly undesirable. Walking around in condition white because you have a gun is just stupid.

This is actually a fairly common opinion with the members of firearms forums. It's interesting and it does have it's merits (especially to those of us who have defensive training) but it forgets that the main advantage that a CCW gives the typical citizen is an effective defensive capability without hitting the weights, going to the dojo, or having to engage in combative sports. If the untrained citizen defending themselves from a lethal or potentially gravely injurious attack has the will to use their CCW, it'll do them a lot better than all of the training in the world and lacking this drive to use the tool in their hands.

Wow, six pages later and it turned to a gun-control debate. Side note: If crooks want guns they can and will get them (they usually do). If the government wants guns they buy them, if a citizen wants a gun that is a no-no. Why, I'm not sure. As the two biggest threats to his life and property are the government and crooks.

Maybe we should all buy flowers instead and sing cumbuya by the campfire. Then we'll all be safe. [/sarcasm]

Back on topic, I think the knockdown rules are more cinematic than factual. That being said, I usually forget it half the time as GM (bad bad bad GM). Anyway knockback may be due to the hydrostatic shock to system, your brains reaction (IE temporary shutdown) than due to the impact of the bullet.

then change government to deal with the crooks, or at least thats the theory behind democracies...

Obviously there may be varying levels of training and testing required in various different States and localities, which I won't even pretend to know, but the impression I've garnered is that obtaining a driving license involves some kind of test, while anyone can simply go buy a gun, cooling off period or no. What I don't get is why you need training and testing to drive a car, but not to own a firearm.

You need a test to drive a car on public roads - you can drive and own your car on your own land without a test.

And you don't need to take a test to *buy* a car. You need to take a test to *drive* it in public. You don't need to test to buy a gun, but in most jurisdictions in the US (including mine) you do have to take a safety class of some kind to get CCW.

Anyway, wasn't there a topic around here somewhere? Oh yeah there its is!! I don't think it would be totally off base to use Willpower instead of Body for knock down tests, or maybe the average round down (if you like knock down as a story element) or whichever is higher. I would include a stipulation about knockdown from very large caliber weapons being all Body, however (you WILL fall down if you get hit with an autocannon).

Nooo, I'm telling people to hit the gym.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PuUflTcJzA

It's not an issue of it being "confusing," to me, or whether or not I can acknowledge that lots of people don't know the difference (ENOUGH people don't know the difference, in fact, that the difference has mostly eroded). It's not that I'm worried a Dumpshocker will be in a gunfight someday, ask for a clip while under heavy fire, and his buddy will pop out of cover for a second and toss him a paperclip or something.

The issue to me is that the only reason clip is considered acceptable by many people today is that people used the wrong term, over and over again, until most people that knew the right term just didn't give a fuck any more. Apathy in the face of ignorance offends me. Whether or not the opinions matter in any tangible sense is a moot point, to me. You can quote a dictionary and I'll continue to not care because I know that the defining difference between a clip and magazine is that a magazine has a feed mechanism and a clip doesn't. Period. There's right, and there's wrong, and the fact the wrong people outnumber and out-volume the right people does not change that.

I started this whole sad sack of crap argument by just saying "Magazine, please," in order to attempt to -- very politely for me, almost quietly, in fact -- mention that clip wasn't the correct term, magazine was, and that was it. In the space of a few days, it turned into people busting out dictionaries, people talking about the Swiss and their military history, someone ranting for four paragraphs about gun control (then trying to act like nothing happened with a one-liner about "now, back on topic"), the usual American Gun Ownership Versus The Rest Of the World argument starting back up, and somewhere, I'm sure, a kitchen sink is in the mix.

Which is exactly why I tried to nip this shit in the bud with a "Nevermind" as my very next post, following the two-word "Magazine, please." Because I don't really care that much, and this silly crap isn't worth the hassle. The fact that silly crap isn't worth the hassle is the only reason "clip" is a socially acceptable term, so I guess this turn of events shouldn't surprise me.

Agreed. Plus, in SR4 knocking people off of things is a great way to convince your players that the Athletics group and a better strength score may not be such a terrible idea. Having a 1 or 2 strength score and a couple Edge is not fun when you're defaulting a potentially life-or-death climbing check to grab the ledge action movie style. I guess you can say that as a GM, I'm a strong defenestration advocate. I mean, honestly, a Samurai who can't win a high-rise showdown isn't really a Samurai at all. It's practically in the damned job description.

If it means anything, mags are still a common term among those of us who use several of them everyday.

I disagree, for the reasons I have already stated.



Um, you are aware that not one single person has even mentioned this topic for over 49 hours prior to your post, aren't you? The whole issue was pretty much over and done with before you decided to post again on the topic. It isn't like you didn't have a chance earlier as, like you said, you did actually post while the topic was hot, but chose instead not to really address the issue at that time.

Actually, my point was that if he has a gun aimed at me, I'm just going to hand over my wallet wether I'm carrying a gun or not.

And I'm aware of how dangerous knives are. I wasn't saying I wouldn't get injured, I was just saying I'd rather get hurt but leave my oponent breathing, and yes, I realise I'm in the minority on that.


As I just mentioned, it wasn't legal justification that I was worried about. Sorry, I unintentionally misrepresented a matter of personal preference as fact, I was kind of scattered that day.


I really wish YouTube wasn't blocked at work right now.


Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. Brute force may have done more to shape history, but a lot of the history that brute force has shaped has been the bad bits. A lot more progress (socially, not technologically) has been made by cooperation than conflict.


There are a lot of variables involved. A weapon ban in Switzerland might not make anyone safer, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove that a weapon ban in the USA wouldn't. I imagine the US has a much higher percentage of violent crimes than Switzerland does regardless of gun involvement.


That's a bit of a strawman argument. Guns may not kill people, but they do facilitate the killing of people. As mentioned upthread, it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun on the spur of the moment than with a knife. Making it significantly harder to aquire a gun makes it significantly harder to kill someone with ease, which makes the prospect of killing someone in the first place seem a lot less appetising.


That's very location dependant. The realistic possibility of invasion from an outside source is negligible in most first-world countries, and they all have armed and trained defense forces in place, ostensibly to hedge against said outcome, so saying the general populace need guns incase the south decides to rise again is more than a little silly. As for needing to be able to rebel against the government, again, in most 'western' countries, you'd do a lot more damage to the government by going on strike than blowing up a tank or shooting a few soldiers.

Saying you need guns for either of those reasons smacks of paranoia.


Exactly my point.


Bonus points for doing it with a shotgun, particularly if it's full-auto.


If, in whatever country you live in, the government actually is a threat to your life and/or property, you could make a case for gun ownership, but I'm pretty sure dictatorships don't give their citizens gun access anyway.

"There are a lot of variables involved. A weapon ban in Switzerland might not make anyone safer, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove that a weapon ban in the USA wouldn't."

Not hard at all in fact. It would be just as hard to prove a gun ban would make anything better. Criminals are criminals because they break laws. Ban guns, and guesse what? They would ignore it and get guns anyway. Criminals who commit felonies (and those are all the bad crimes) already can't own guns legally.

"As mentioned upthread, it's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun on the spur of the moment than with a knife."

That is a load of boohocky. You think it's harder to pull out a knife and stab someone than to shoot them? If you've lost it enough to perform such an act, your not going to stop with the first stab. And if you are to believe the posters on the first couple of pages, the pistol isn't likely to kill you anyway.

"so saying the general populace need guns incase the south decides to rise again is more than a little silly"

Actually it's for the South to defend itself against invaders to its sovereignty. That was "The War of Northern Aggression." The South had every legal right to leave the Union. If the original founders had written "and once you join, you can't leave," not a single state would have joined.

Ornot, your missing the fact that owning arms is a protected right. Driving a car is not, which is why they can take away your driver's license for refusing a breathalyzer.

Critias, I'm sorry that a common use term causes you such pain because it's not technical. But it is now, currently, a correct term for what we are speaking of. Maybe not technical, but it is correct. Besides, pg. 312 of the SR4 base book says 'clip' is the correct term.