No, it's pretty damm obvious when looking at all the other weapon specializations that it applies based on weapon type.
I cann't understand how someone can arrive to any other conclusion.

I'd understand being confused at first, since semi-auto isn't really a category of pistols. But, it's fairly obvious that "Taser," "Revolver," and "Holdout" are not firing modes. Concluding that the fourth specialization is somehow unique is just silly. Insisting that it is despite having people point how the differences is just needlessly argumentative, possibly to the point of trolling.

Then I shall explain how it's very simple to arrive at the conclusion that the pistol specialization refers to firing rate. There is not a single weapon in Shadowrun 4 that is explicitly described as semi-automatic in terms of operation, only firing rate. The only time the term "Semi Automatic" is used in the core book that is not explicitly talking about firing rates is when discussing pistol specialization. There it is used ambiguously without providing any definition contrary to the firing rate usage present everywhere else. Furthermore, the only Single Shot pistols (as in, don't use SA firing rates) in the core book are Tasers, Holdouts and Revolvers - the other specialization options.

If a person did not know the technical definition of semi-automatic in the real world (a common scenario, even among gamers), their only reasonable conclusion from reading the SR4 core book would be that the Semi Automatic pistol specialization refers to the firing rate. One can combine a knowledge of real firearm operation and the lack of an explicit reference to firing rates when discussing Pistol specialization to infer that the intended meaning of the specialization was mode of operation, but there is no material support within the core book (or Arsenal for that matter) for that inference.

It's not that silly nor unique. The only pistols in the core rule book without a SA firing mode are Tasers, Holdouts, and Revolvers. It's peculiar and sloppy, but there would still appear to be a correlation between firing mode and specialization.

I must have missed the top one.

Actually this happened to me once. We were playing Dreamchipper, and my face/thief Car was chasing Val/Cleo down the docks when she went into the drink. So Car dove in after her. Car then found that it is really hard to swim wearing a longcoat filled with gear, including his concealed holster and p-sec. He had to strip off the coat in order not to drown. He swam after her underneath the dock, where she surfaced on the other side. She was hauled out of the water by Car's teammates, followed by Car. Car remained conscious long enough to tell her she owed him another gun before he passed out.

You're one of those people who doesn't tag Swimming when you start a game of Deus Ex, right?

No, electronics, computer, and lockpicking.

Actually no, I meant dance. Pick your flavour, I don't care, but something that is done simply for recreational/aesthetic reasons with little to no martial applications outside of the general physical fitness effects.

I know this is really belated and somewhat off topic, but I have to object to this. Flying a fixed-wing aircraft personally and flying it by remote are *not* the same thing. I've flown both powered and unpowered aircraft before, and I can vouch that being physically in charge is so much more than piloting by remote.

Let's see. There are more than one ways that I can respond to this, but since I played a Deus Ex mod yesterday I have to type them all in a list instead of only putting one.

1.) So, like that other poster said, kata. BURRRRNNN!
2.) Actually, you're probably right. Many people in the US are overweight, out of shape, and unweildly. If they all got plyometric exercise and stretching through dance, it would make us all better off.
3.) NAARG NOT VIOLENT ENOUGH!!!!

Yes of course, because god knows nothing is effective in the world till we've rebranded every universal concept with some ill-fitting oriental name for it.

Amen

I hereby offer the final word on this topic, as follows.

Pistol specializations shall be in the type of operation they utilize, except when they are not.

There. Problem solved.

Maybe I should run for office someday...

I was referring to the Shadowrun game mechanics of skill specialization and how they can overlap. The skill I used as an example is Pilot Aircraft. This skill covers ANY aircraft. The specialization of "Remote Operation" gives a bonus to ANY remote operation of ANY aircraft, but does not confer a bonus to fixed wing aircraft if not remotely operated. However, the specialization Fixed Wing gives a bonus to ANY fixed wing aircraft, whether it is remotely operated or not, but does not confer any bonus to non-fixed-wing aircraft, remotely operated or not. There is an overlap here.

Comparing real life examples of physically flying an aircraft and remotely operating an aircraft to Shadowrun's abstraction of the Pilot Aircraft skill is merely silly. Sure, there are major differences between flying a fixed wing aircraft in person and remotely, but from what I have heard from various pilots, there is a larger gap between fixed wing and rotary wing and lighter than air aircraft. It is still all covered by one single little number, with an occasional specialization bonus.

I wasn't making a statement about real life skills. I was commenting on the game mechanics.

Fair enough. It just seemed that we'd had 2 pages of people talking real life to justify the varied specializations of firearms. I took that as an opportunity to use real life experience of my own to comment on your example. My apologies for being "silly."

I think the point is that you haven't remote piloted an aircraft remotely via an infinite bandwidth wireless connection using VR using a direct neural connection so your experience with remote flight doesn't pertain to the SR-verse.

Pretty much. That's why your "sword" only does STR M damage or whatever it was, whereas the "katana" does STR + 3 M damage. That +3 appears when you start speaking Japanese.

It's also like in Oriental Adventures, where if you're a non-monk white man in a proto-European medieval kingdom trying to punch someone you do negligable amounts of damage, but if you're a non-monk asian man in an Oriental Adventures campaign with the "karate" skill your punches suddenly do 1d6 damage before STR bonuses. Which recall is similar to the damage a non-monk white man would only do if he were swinging a mace.

My point was less about real life experiences and more about game mechanics. Even a VR interface would be different than physically flying a vehicle.

In a word: yes. I think basic firearm safety should be a part of kindergarten and primary school, with proper handling, servicing and loading/unloading being conducted for both sidearms and longarms. In middle school, I would like to see mandatory firing line familiarization, and optional full service training with both types. Basic martial arts, if taught correctly, encourage good general fitness of body and mind, and I would encourage them fully. I see absolutely no reason that Kingboy's classes should not be at least offered as well. Well rounded young people become well rounded adults. We've tried to focus on the "three R's" and failed miserably. We educated our childern better when we made sure they were being raised as a more complete person, than making sure they were able to perform educational bulimia on command; We ask them to cram in information and regurgitate it on examinations without verifying retention or comprehension over the long term. I remember my own educational experiences vividly, and I know the advanced art/acting/music lessons I took helped broaden me in ways more hours of Politically Corrected history or oversimplified mathematics could ever have hoped to. Phillosophy, as a general investigation of the ideas, would be a wonderful thing as well, in my opinion if it could be made into more than a Christian Theological Indoctrination. Classes on logic, ethics and comparative sociology would dramatically improve the way Americans interract with the world at large but giving us an apperciation for other cultures and viewpoints, whether we agree with them or not. The lessons in handling firearms teach self-confidence and responsibility, and will help eliminate ignorance related firearm deaths without depriving people of their fundamental rights to defend themselves. Sorry, that's my rant.

Hrm. In general I agree with you. I remember my public education vividly as well. I did horribly in school. There were a number of reasons why I had such a hard time. Probably the biggest proof that my trouble in school was not lack of intelligence or a learning disablilty was the fact that in 10th grade when we went on vacation for winter break I got a GED. I took the supposedly day-long test in less than 2 hours and did very well. Before my fellow 10th graders went back from vacation I had the equivalent of a diploma.

I agree that there should be more thorough and effective education for all in this country. I don't know about mandatory combat training, though. I would make it elective, but that is just me.

I did the same thing, but only because I was moving states. Didn't want to be in my senior year of highschool at a new school.

Though, not the GED, I took the CHSPE (California High School Proficiency Exam). You have to be 18 to take the GED, where as the HPE is the same thing for minors. In any case, I finished both sections before most other people, but the grade I got back was a pass/fail, so no idea how well I did (I passed).

The shooting part would be optional beyond simple discharge, possibly with blanks for the skittish/objectors. I suppose you could always do the "opt-out" with parental consent but ... that takes a lot out of it if it's not universal knowledge. The handling part WOULD be mandatory as a safety issue, like a form of driver's ed. Only way out is to prove competency, so a parent could teach them personally and test out. I guess I can see how martial arts, even the very basics would be seen as "combat training", but given where I have seem parts of our society go, I'm not so sure that would be a BAD thing. I have taken people to the range and seen them find new confidence from the experience of having successfully handled and utilized a firearm time and again.

Besides, I personally find shooting to be theraputic and relaxing.

Maybe it varies by state. I took the GED when I was 16.

Possible.

I remember a lot of the student protestors from back when I was an undergrad who would have all kinds of fun going on about the "militarization of society". How they would gnash their teeth in fury. It would be so entertaining to watch, and they would be so easy to troll.

But, I think that if hypothetically everyone in the US had experience operating firearm, the gun control movment in its current form (i.e., ZOMG MAGIC OMNIPOTENT ASSAULT WEAPONS R SCARRRY!!!!) would completely evaporate since it seems to be based mostly around not knowing how firearms work. Not to say you wouldn't have people who wanted to control weapons more or less strictly by law, but I think that the debate would become more substantive and not revolving around the mythical and fabled "assault weapon". So basically we'd all be better off if for no other reason than knowledge would replace the rampant ignorance that normally characterizes this political wedge issue.

One of my favorite quotes, which sadly may be misquoted, is

Yesterday I had to explain to my grandparents the difference between semi-automatic, automatic, and assault weapons. I also explained that firearms, arguably, are no more dangerous than cars in careless hands. I assert that it is easier for the average American to kill more people easily with a car than a gun.

Yes, but the classic response to that is "cars have utility in day to day life whereas firearms have none," because people who fantasize about firearms but who never use them basically think they're 1st edition D&D wands of magic missile. I think you're only going to move the debate in a more mature direction once people actually know from personal experience and skill what they're actually talking about.

I humbly disagree with trying to teach or even show off firearms in school. Especially when sometimes even those giving the gun safety lectures shoot themselves.

I do however agree with the general tone of your post. Out country desperately needs to properly educate our youth. Between failed education programs, poor pay, and horrible government ideas, we're really on a downward slope.

I'm just awed that people still think the US is the center of the universe and innovation and education and technology. So many people have no clue just how far behind we are in so many fields. *shakes head* It doesn't help that many of our really successful citizens aren't reproducing because they're too busy focusing on their career, whereas the slum-locked trash families are producing kids by the handful. It's a hell of a spiral and it's not a good future we're heading towards.

Wow I tangented. I'll shaddap now.

I read in a magazine about that incident. Apparently the man who shot himself was an undercover cop who would show up to public schools projecting his thug persona in order to appeal to the students while at the same time being able to guide them away from joining gangs. That wasn't a firearms safety presentation, as I understand it, so much as displaying the firearm to fit in with the badass persona, from which the anti gang spiel would proceed. Supposedly that cop had been involved in a number of operations and was quite seasoned, but his career has been ruined since that video hit the internet because now everyone knows that he is a cop.

My counter-argument about the firearms safety class was that the cop obviously was carrying his firearm concealed and ready to shoot with a round in the chamber. I believe that the firearm in question was a Glock .40 which also relies on grip safeties which are always active, as opposed to a manual safety where you'd flick a switch and be unable to fire. So basically I think that Glocks would be a bit more prone to accidental discharge than, say, a 1911 with the safety on, or any pistol where you'd walk around without a round in the chamber. According to Wikipedia, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_pistol)



So basically if you had a presentation on firearms safety rather than thug persona badassery don't-join-a-gang, that sort of accidental discharge shouldn't happen because you could carry your firearm totally unloaded and in a case, which is safer than carrying a firearm concealed in a manner where you could draw it and fire if you needed to. There's always a certain low but present risk of accident when you carry around a concealed firearm all the time.

Believe it or not, this is actually related to Shadowrun in my mind. Remember the 3rd edition Canon Companion, where they had a firearm modification "remove safety"? I always thought that was one heck of a silly modification. In the first place, if you really wanted to remove manual safties, you could just carry a Glock, where you'd have passive safties and it would still be a hell lot safer than running around with a round ready to go off in your pocket. Secondly, the risk of blowing your leg off when you used the crapper would so totally outweigh whatever advantages not having a safety would have, especially seeing as it's so simple and easy to simply train the muscle memory to turn off your safety before you fire.

I have seen a video on TV once where a jewelry shot proprietor gets shot because he and a robber draw on each other at the stame time, and the shop owner fails to disengage the safety. So basically in order for the no-safety thing to have helped you'd need to be some shop owner in New York City who never practices with the damn firearm because of the constraints of living in New York City. But IMO it would be pretty laughable for a professional shadowrunner to get any sort of benefit from not having a safety on his or her firearm. I thought it was a pretty contrived modification.

Wasn't there a quote attributed to some renaissance fencing instructor? "A man who carries a sword around with him without knowing how to use it is full as ridiculous as a man who carries books around with him without knowing how to read."

Are you implying that I don't know what I'm talking about? If so then I would take offense. The fact that cars have day-to-day utility is kind of the point. My position that cars are more effective for the average American to kill with partly relies on the ubiquity of vehicles. It is far easier to get ahold of a vehicle quickly than a firearm. Additionally, if you hit someone with a car they are usually squished. To kill someone with a gun you need a gun, bullets, and either alot of luck or a modicum of skill. Many people who are shot with a single pistol-calibre round survive. Many people who are hit by a car don't.

No, the internets are serious business so I try not to haphazardly imply stuff like that when I post.



Today I had an experience which makes me think that operating machine guns should perhaps be a different skill than the one that goes for rifles, while at the same time I believe that logically if you wanted to be more correct you could roll rifles, shotguns, and carbines all into one.

Today I broke down and basically got ripped off to fire 50 linked rounds through a M1919 Browning machinegun ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun ) at an indoor range. It was funny because when I told the range staff I wanted to do that they stood around for a minute or two talking among themselves about how the hell they were going to move that thing into position and how they'd need two people and so on.

They laid out a little mattress on the floor so I could comfortably fire prone. I was amazed that even thoug the thing was on its little tripod, and was really heavy, it actually would move to the right every time I squeezed off a 3 round burst, and they had to re-adjust it. On the paper I was shooting at I could see the rounds clearly walking from left to right and upwards, just with these very conservative 3 round bursts I was squeezing off.

The experience was totally different than using a rifle, handgun, shotgun, or automatic rifle. The ergonomics of using that machine gun were totally different. There was no buttstock or trigger guard. The trigger was just sticking off the back all by itself. Just some teeny tiny crappy sights up top and since it was all set up with a tripod I didn't have to use my body to counter the recoil or anything like that. In spite of this I felt like it really bounced around and the smell of gunpowder was really thick in the air. It was physically easy to fire but comically imprecise and kind of having a mind of its own, from my brief experience with it.

I apologize for being oversensitive.

If memory serves me machine guns are operated by the heavy weapon skill. To avoid the jumping around they used to use sandbags on the legs of the tripod.

But seriously, though. You'd honestly need really big sandbags. That aren't squishy. I was like holy crap.

Yes, Machine guns are extremely fun, and DO require a bit of skill to utilize to their full extent... that is something that the untrained generally are not capable of doing in my experience... even in the Marine Corps, it takes some time for the Machine Gunners to gain proficiency with their weapons...

Out of curiosity, do you know if it was the 1919A4?

You didn't watch that video at all, did you? He's quite clearly wearing a kevlar vest that says POLICE on it. Hard to be undercover when you wear a vest that says POLICE and are giving a demonstration to a class, a number of whom could have gang ties.

No, I couldn't say. If I had to take a guess, I'd say it was probably one of the ones that was converted to 7.62 NATO for the Vietnam War, just because that is the most likely to have survived in fireable condition and made it into a gun store inventory today, as opposed to an actual World War I piece.

If you really want to score e-points on me I'll let you pretend that I clearly didn't watch the video. Have a nice day.

Luckily, not a single driver's education teacher in the history of the world has ever been in a car accident!