With all the current discussion about the 1994 AWB sunset, and the amendment to extend it being added to a bill that was recently shot down in the US Senate, I'd like to know what you guys have to say about gun control in your SR games.
Canon is not very specific on what firearms are legal to possess, purchase, and manufacture in different parts of the CAS/UCAS. And do you think what IS canon makes sense, and if so, what is your reasoning?
Any and all posts welcome.
As a side note, and a little bit OT, I'd like to know what our UK posters have to say about the ban on handguns in their country and what that has for the violent/gun related crime rate.
Full Version: UCAS/CAS gun control laws...
Actually, I find Canon to be very specific. The legality codes tell you everything you need to know about owning any piece of questionable gear, including firearms.
If it has a P beside it, chances are the average citizen can, with a reasonable excuse own said item.
If it has a P beside it, chances are the average citizen can, with a reasonable excuse own said item.
I always found SR legal restriction on firearms a bit unrealistic. Many guns that are presently legal for a citizen to own (at least in the USA) without a permit require a permit only 60+ years in the future.
As for the 1994 AWB its a load of Bull Sh!#. None of the weapons specifically or implied in that bill are assault weapons. True assault weapons that are capable of burst fire and full auto are already controlled by other licensing procedures. The 1994 AWB was what happens when people that have very little knowledge of firearms have a knee jerk reaction to gun violence. The 1994 AWB can be used to classify some indoor target pistols capable of firing only 22 shorts as and assault weapon because they are a semi-auto pistol that has a magazine in front of the trigger guard and have the end of the barrel threaded for a compensator. It seemed many of the firearms banned were done so because they look ‘evil’ not because they actually were being used in crime.
mcb
As for the 1994 AWB its a load of Bull Sh!#. None of the weapons specifically or implied in that bill are assault weapons. True assault weapons that are capable of burst fire and full auto are already controlled by other licensing procedures. The 1994 AWB was what happens when people that have very little knowledge of firearms have a knee jerk reaction to gun violence. The 1994 AWB can be used to classify some indoor target pistols capable of firing only 22 shorts as and assault weapon because they are a semi-auto pistol that has a magazine in front of the trigger guard and have the end of the barrel threaded for a compensator. It seemed many of the firearms banned were done so because they look ‘evil’ not because they actually were being used in crime.
mcb
You just stated the mechanism for the irrational permit needs.
Knee jerk legislation.
Knee jerk legislation.
I wonder how the permit laws of 1944 differ from those of 2004. More or less than the permit laws of shadowrun differ from the permit laws of the past decade or two?
| QUOTE (mcb) |
| I always found SR legal restriction on firearms a bit unrealistic. Many guns that are presently legal for a citizen to own (at least in the USA) without a permit require a permit only 60+ years in the future. As for the 1994 AWB its a load of Bull Sh!#. None of the weapons specifically or implied in that bill are assault weapons. True assault weapons that are capable of burst fire and full auto are already controlled by other licensing procedures. The 1994 AWB was what happens when people that have very little knowledge of firearms have a knee jerk reaction to gun violence. The 1994 AWB can be used to classify some indoor target pistols capable of firing only 22 shorts as and assault weapon because they are a semi-auto pistol that has a magazine in front of the trigger guard and have the end of the barrel threaded for a compensator. It seemed many of the firearms banned were done so because they look ‘evil’ not because they actually were being used in crime. mcb |
The AWB was designed to ban weapons that "looked" scary. It had nothing to do with actual crimes commited with such weapons (which interestingly enough was very, VERY low). Gun laws aren't based on fact and reason anymore. They are based on raw emotion with no thinking behind it. The joys of a society of victims. I can imagine in SR time that will only be worse.
| QUOTE (Reaver) |
| Gun laws aren't based on fact and reason anymore. They are based on raw emotion with no thinking behind it. |
Just like a whole lot of other laws. The joys of a deeply religious, highly moralistic society inhabited by ignorant, panicky animals -- ie the civilized world.
[Edit]Rev has got a good point with the comparison of 1944 vs 2004: 60 years is a heck of a long time to change laws in. It's certainly long enough for culture and the whole of society to change dramatically, as can be witnessed by the whole megacorp-cyberpunk attitude of the SR world.
And SR is supposed to be dark and hopeless, at least to a degree. So if you consider the right to bear arms light and hope, then it's a good idea not to allow that in the SR world.
Personally, with my games set in Finland, I've never really had to bother with gun control laws. I cannot see why they would change here in the next 60 years, because they haven't really in the past 50-ish years. The enforcement of the laws will be stricter, just as it is stricter now than 50 years ago, but that goes without saying with the tech level and SINs and all.[/Edit]
Couldn't agree more. I watched Bowling for Columbine, which was an excellent documentary on this very issue.
Back on topic: I can't say that there's too much mystery in the current rules about the legality of the different forms of possession and usage of firearms. Its always been pretty easy for me to run in my games. I find myself turning a blind eye sometimes though to the gun laws in SR.
Back on topic: I can't say that there's too much mystery in the current rules about the legality of the different forms of possession and usage of firearms. Its always been pretty easy for me to run in my games. I find myself turning a blind eye sometimes though to the gun laws in SR.
Amen to that, mcb. I agree 100% about the crappy AWB and the emotional crap behind it.
You know, being from the south, I tend to feel that the CAS would have much looser gun control legislation. I'm sure fully-automatic weapons would still require a permit/license, but just about everything else shy of an AMR would probably be relatively legal to own.
And with Megacorps like Ares standing to lose loads of money on the civilian market, I'm sure they'd lobby very hard against gun control.
You know, being from the south, I tend to feel that the CAS would have much looser gun control legislation. I'm sure fully-automatic weapons would still require a permit/license, but just about everything else shy of an AMR would probably be relatively legal to own.
And with Megacorps like Ares standing to lose loads of money on the civilian market, I'm sure they'd lobby very hard against gun control.
There is a vast difference between legal to own with a permit and illegal to own.
Personally I find little wrong with owning a firing but needing a permit to do so, or at least registering the firearm. Should the weapon ever be used to commit a crime, the law needs to know who owns the weapon. Also, say I shoot an intruder, tyhey live and escape. At local hospital the intruder has bullet removed, it's turned over as evidence and they can arrest the perp because it's proof he was shot by my gun, only person I have shot was the person that entered my home illegally.
Now, on the flip side, should our government become the oppressive monolithe that many fear it is heading towards, the last thing I want is for them to know what I own, otherwise they can plan around it.
Personally I find little wrong with owning a firing but needing a permit to do so, or at least registering the firearm. Should the weapon ever be used to commit a crime, the law needs to know who owns the weapon. Also, say I shoot an intruder, tyhey live and escape. At local hospital the intruder has bullet removed, it's turned over as evidence and they can arrest the perp because it's proof he was shot by my gun, only person I have shot was the person that entered my home illegally.
Now, on the flip side, should our government become the oppressive monolithe that many fear it is heading towards, the last thing I want is for them to know what I own, otherwise they can plan around it.
| QUOTE |
| Couldn't agree more. I watched Bowling for Columbine, which was an excellent documentary on this very issue. |
I completely disagree. Click on the link in my sig line then count how many logical fallacies were used in that documentary. The vast majority of that movie was all based on horrible logic and false conclusions supported by scenes set up to specifically get only the ersult they were looking for. I have rarely seen a documentary as poorly done as that one in that regard.
I would say that 'pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting' does not work to deter criminal use. There has yet to be a case that has pivoted on 'pre-sale ballistic fingerprinting'. Since only the receiver of a firearm is required to have a serial number and be traced you can switch bolts, barrels, firing pins, and such eraseing the regestered finger print of a gun.
mcb
mcb
Well, a freind of mine just purchased a spare barrel for his pistol and had to register it.
Personally, I feel we have more gun control laws than necessary, what we lack is proper enforement of the laws in place currently.
I don't remember where I read it, but someone stated that thousands of weapons were kept out of the hands of ex-convists because of the background check, what they failed to mention was that almost none of those were arrested when they should have been since attempting to purchase a firearm is illegal for them and would likely result in a return to the Penn.
Personally, I feel we have more gun control laws than necessary, what we lack is proper enforement of the laws in place currently.
I don't remember where I read it, but someone stated that thousands of weapons were kept out of the hands of ex-convists because of the background check, what they failed to mention was that almost none of those were arrested when they should have been since attempting to purchase a firearm is illegal for them and would likely result in a return to the Penn.
If weed isn't legal by 2060, I don't see why guns should be.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Mar 3 2004, 03:43 PM) |
| And SR is supposed to be dark and hopeless, at least to a degree. So if you consider the right to bear arms light and hope, then it's a good idea not to allow that in the SR world. |
Meh, I'm not too keen on RPG universes that mandate a specific overarching mindset. Fortunately, SR is very flexible with what part of the game universe you can emphasize over others. Heck, or simply do a slight rewrite of a small piece of cannon and tie in all those interesting magic/draconic/merc/shadowy underworld elements into it and you've got a whole new mood. I've always believed what a specific game universe "is supposed to be", was up to the GM and the group to decide what specific mood a game should take and as such, a game universe that lends itself to flexibility in that area has much more utility in that regard. Battle for survival for a tragic nationalistic hero in Aztlan? Can do. Blackhats vs. Only moderately speckled Gray hats? Can do that as well. Personally, I'm much more keen on a Doug Adams or Terry Pratchet-esque mood of humorous humanistic absurdity regardless of how desperate the situation rather than the Gibsonsite view. All the inherent conflict of the SR universe lends itself to that well.
But on topic, like it's already been mentioned, Ares stands to gain hugely from lively civilian gun-cultures and the CAS and probably UCAS as well would definately have one.
| QUOTE (Centurion) |
| I've always believed what a specific game universe "is supposed to be", was up to the GM and the group to decide what specific mood a game should take [...] |
It was simply a comment on the generic mood you see in most cyberpunk-ish stuff. In that context, "supposed to" was trying to convey that, to a degree, the game was made to be a bit like that. Whether you want to play it like that is, of course, up to your group, but you cannot deny that the "And so it came to pass..." section in the beginning of SR3 is quite "dark" and somewhat "hopeless".
I know, which is why I'm not too keen on cyberpunkish themes so much as modern nationalistic conflicts with magic and cyber tossed in. I'm all for others running a dystopian gloomy campaign if they choose, but I think it's simply a good thing if the same game universe can be used with little to no modification to create an entirely different mood, which I think SR acomplishes quite well.
| QUOTE |
| but you cannot deny that the "And so it came to pass..." section in the beginning of SR3 is quite "dark" and somewhat "hopeless". |
Well yeah, That's what I'm getting at. Misfortune doesn't always mean gloom. As Mel Brooks said, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."
I certainly admit that at least the whole nuclear plants blowing up all around thing is pretty hilarious. 
| QUOTE (BitBasher) | ||
I completely disagree. Click on the link in my sig line then count how many logical fallacies were used in that documentary. The vast majority of that movie was all based on horrible logic and false conclusions supported by scenes set up to specifically get only the ersult they were looking for. I have rarely seen a documentary as poorly done as that one in that regard. |
I didn't take enough time to write that first part. I'm in agreement with the fact that people make bad decisions based on their emotions. I meant to imply that Bowling for Columbine is a great example of how moronic gun control lobbyists can be. I don't agree with the movie at all, let me straighten that up now.
I should've reworded my reply.
In some ways, I'm surprised there aren't more legal restrictions in the SR setting, simply because for a large degree the 'powers that be' have dropped some of the pretense that they give a rat's butt about public opinion or desires. There is a more heavy handed and direct control over media and consequently public opinion than we see in real life today.
That being said...
I could see CAS laws being less strict for gun control than UCAS. Considering the CAS southern borders, and that Lone Star popped up in texas, I could see there being more of a roughhouse kind of persona.
That being said...
I could see CAS laws being less strict for gun control than UCAS. Considering the CAS southern borders, and that Lone Star popped up in texas, I could see there being more of a roughhouse kind of persona.
| QUOTE |
| In some ways, I'm surprised there aren't more legal restrictions in the SR setting, simply because for a large degree the 'powers that be' have dropped some of the pretense that they give a rat's butt about public opinion or desires. |
Um, thats not really true. In fact, in SR canon that's not true at all. Government officials are still elected and even AAA megacorps incomes are directly limited by the public opinion of the corp. The public's opinion is VERY important. See Corporate Shadowfiles and The Corporate Download for more info.
Crimson Jack: cool
Crimson Jack: cool
I find firearm legality codes to be a little less than well-thought out, and really only applicable to one political area (i.e. the UCAS). One of the larger disparities abound is the fact that a weapon like the Ares Viper Slivergun, a silenced automatic pistol according to the rules of the game, is permittable (5P-E) while an assault rifle is not (4-G). The AVS should have at least the same rating as an AR. Given, laws regarding firearms do tend to make very little sense even in the real world, but this is just ludicrous. The heirs of Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer must not be a part of 2060s UCAS politics.
In my own estimation of North American politics in the world of Shadowrun, the UCAS has adopted very stringent European-style firearms laws, requiring licensing for any and all legal ownership of firearms. CAS is much more tolerant of gun ownership, having laws similar to those of the US today. NAN states are all extremely tolerant of gun ownership, especially PCC (where Ruger's investment casting and assembly factories are located today) and Sioux. Tir Tairngire and CFS, however, are the least tolerant nations regarding firearm ownership. Outright bans are the norm, as well as excessive fines and punishments. Aztlan laws are also very restrictive, though illegal firearms are not difficult to find and acquire.
In my own estimation of North American politics in the world of Shadowrun, the UCAS has adopted very stringent European-style firearms laws, requiring licensing for any and all legal ownership of firearms. CAS is much more tolerant of gun ownership, having laws similar to those of the US today. NAN states are all extremely tolerant of gun ownership, especially PCC (where Ruger's investment casting and assembly factories are located today) and Sioux. Tir Tairngire and CFS, however, are the least tolerant nations regarding firearm ownership. Outright bans are the norm, as well as excessive fines and punishments. Aztlan laws are also very restrictive, though illegal firearms are not difficult to find and acquire.
| QUOTE (Rev) |
| I wonder how the permit laws of 1944 differ from those of 2004. |
In the US, very little. In 1944, the only time a person needed to be "licensed" prior to purchasing a firearm was when one wished to purchase an automatic firearm, such as a Thompson, BAR, or a machine gun (National Firearms Act of 1934, which restricted automatic weapons, silencers, and "short barreled rifles" among other things). Licenses were administered federally by the BATF, and cost $200 per firearm. Technically, the process is not licensing. It's a "tax stamp" applied by the Department of the Treasury. It is now de facto licensing because extensive background checks are now conducted by the FBI before a tax stamp can be approved. That's still the case today.
Other laws exist, but none modify the tax stamp process at all, AFAIK. The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricts the importation of certain firearms into the US. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 bans the civilian sale of "machine guns" (broad political definition) manufactured after 1986. The Assault Weapons Ban restricts the sale of firearms with more than TWO of the following attached: a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, a "magazine which projects conspicuously from the bottom of the weapon", a pistol grip which is separate from the shoulder stock. It also restricts the sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds to law enforcement and military.
Massachusetts is currently the only state in the union that requires a license before a firearm can be purchased.
Laws regarding public carry of firearms are handled by each state or district. Most states license concealed carry of firearms, with varying degrees of qualification for permits. A few states allow unlicenced open carry (Arizona, Vermont). Other states are extremely restrictive (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York). Firearms are illegal to carry in Washington DC, Illinois, and Nebraska.
| QUOTE (Raygun @ Mar 4 2004, 12:54 AM) | ||
In the US, very little. In 1944, the only time a person needed to be "licensed" prior to purchasing a firearm was when one wished to purchase an automatic firearm, such as a Thompson, BAR, or a machine gun (National Firearms Act of 1934, which restricted automatic weapons, silencers, and "short barreled rifles" among other things). Licenses were administered federally by the BATF, and cost $200 per firearm. Technically, the process is not licensing. It's a "tax stamp" applied by the Department of the Treasury. It is now de facto licensing because extensive background checks are now conducted by the FBI before a tax stamp can be approved. That's still the case today. |
So in 1944 you needed a licence to get an actual machinegun, or submachinegun and in 2004 you cannot get a machinegun or submachine gun at all, and de facto must be weakly licenced (just by demonstrating you arent a felon or insane really, citizenship??) to purchase any gun. Then toss in all the waiting periods, lock laws, etc that I am pretty sure did not exist in 1944.
Sounds like quite a lot of difference to me.
And 71 years ago (1933) you did not need a licence to buy a machinegun, silencer, or short barreled rifle.
I wonder about the differences in carry laws, the shadowrun rules make no distinction between ownership, open carry, and concealed carry so to compare we should try to lump together all of our laws and not focus on the least restrictive set (ownership laws).
You (a civilian of the USA) can still buy a fully automatic weapon legally today. It does require that you purchase/qualify for a class four license. Its fairly expensive, requires some training/class work and requires you to partially sign away you right to reasonable search and seizer. It is possible to own a fully functional BAR, MP5 or other similar weapons.
The interesting thing is that there is no federal law, and few state laws against owning and operating muzzle loading black powder cannons. My ‘girlfriend with two rings’ is dreading that I am looking for one. A nice 6 pound gun would be a lot of fun if a bit expensive to feed.
mcb
The interesting thing is that there is no federal law, and few state laws against owning and operating muzzle loading black powder cannons. My ‘girlfriend with two rings’ is dreading that I am looking for one. A nice 6 pound gun would be a lot of fun if a bit expensive to feed.
mcb
| QUOTE (Raygun) |
| Laws regarding public carry of firearms are handled by each state or district. Most states license concealed carry of firearms, with varying degrees of qualification for permits. A few states allow unlicenced open carry (Arizona, Vermont). |
We allow unlicensed concealed carry, too. Vermont has the country's laxest weapons laws. As far as the state's concerned, anyone over 16 can buy and carry basically anything they can lift pretty much anywhere they want (minus a few exceptions, like courthouses and schools), openly or concealed, without a permit. Under 16 merely requires parental permission. The Feds are rather more restrictive... Vermont actually sued them over creating more work for our law enforcement when they mandated background checks a few years back.
On topic, though, I really don't see anything wrong with SR's gun laws. That's "wrong" in a realism and plausibility sense... I'm not going to touch the real-world issues involved in debating whether they're "good" laws (this is not because I don't have an opinion on it, but because the only issue I've seen get nastier faster is abortion... and possibly gay marriage, these days). There's some weird inconsistencies - like the ability to get permits for burst-fire heavy pistols, but not for burst-fire machine pistols with lower base damage codes - but most of them aren't really too bad.
What I think is really bizarre is the legality codes for non-firearm weapons. Bows and blades have nowhere near the restrictions on them today that firearms do... but in Shadowrun, they're all, without exception, illegal with no permit available. Most of them I could walk into a mall today and buy, cash on the barrelhead, no identification required, and walk out with it over my shoulder, and, though the cops might stop me and ask me some questions about what I thought I was going to do with it, they wouldn't arrest me unless I was actually threatening someone with it, because I wouldn't be violating any laws. I've actually done that on one occasion (we were on a quest, and you can't go on a quest without a sword, so I bought a cheap one from a mall curio shop).
I've got, in easy arm's reach here where I sit, three weapons that are perfectly legal not only here in Vermont (country's laxest weapons laws...), but in the more restrictive neighboring areas as well, any of which would earn me a 200¥ fine just for owning in the UCAS, with another 800¥ piled on top of it if they caught me transporting it. And I couldn't even get permits for them. I could get a permit for a burst-fire heavy pistol, no problem, but not for my broadsword? I could get a permit for a hunting rifle or shotgun, but a hunting crossbow or compound bow is just flat-out illegal? I could get a permit for commercial explosives, but not for a fragging knife? WTF? Rattan sticks are illegal with no permit available? Dear gods, I spend my weekends hitting my friends with rattan sticks.
Well, concerning mellee weapons, they didn't do a great deal of research. Here in Georgia, there are no obvious permits, yet like you said you can buy pretty much whatever you can carry, however, if a cop wants to bother you, they can arrest you under the ambiguous 'Implied Threat' of carrying a weapon in the open. I did a little digging a few years back, almost all mellee weapons are covered by a normal carry-conceal permit. mainly because it says weapon, not firearm.
| QUOTE (Rev) |
| So in 1944 you needed a licence to get an actual machinegun, or submachinegun and in 2004 you cannot get a machinegun or submachine gun at all, |
That's not what I said. Do you know how many "machine guns" were imported/manufactured in this country prior to 1968/1986? There are quite a few out there that you, as your average American Joe, are perfectly eligible to own. If you decide you want to be a Federal Firearms License holder (Class 3 Dealer), you can own anything you damn well please, manufactured up to now. The difference is that the tax stamp is a one-time $200 fee per weapon, whereas the FFL requires a $200 application fee (covers three years) along with an annual fee of $30 thereafter. Paperwork due quarterly, and, from what I hear, you have to waive some 4th Amendment rights.
| QUOTE |
| and de facto must be weakly licenced (just by demonstrating you arent a felon or insane really, citizenship??) to purchase any gun. |
Works okay, IMHO. De facto means that it's not called a license, but for all practical intents and purposes, it is a license. You fill out some paperwork, they do a background check and if you pass, the firearm's serial number is attached to your name in a BATF records database.
I was just attempting to demonstrate the backward-ass, less-than-honest ways politicians shoe-horn civilian licensing schemes into policy. They pulled the exact same thing with pot at about the same time, BTW. But I guess potheads don't tend to put up a lot of resistance.
| QUOTE |
| Then toss in all the waiting periods, lock laws, etc that I am pretty sure did not exist in 1944. |
There is no federally mandated waiting period, as the FBI's National Instant Background Check (NICS) system, a good part of the Violent Crime Control Act IMHO, exists. Given, it didn't exist in 1944, but it now delays the purchaser all of five minutes in their legal purchase (no information about the firearm being purchased is passed on to the FBI). Only extremely restrictive states (California, Massachusetts, etc...) institute waiting periods and keep records of firearm purchases.
A few more states have gun lock laws, many of which require manufacturers to provide a lock with the guns they sell as opposed to making a gun owner suffer for not using one.
| QUOTE |
| Sounds like quite a lot of difference to me. |
As a whole, firearm laws are different, for sure. But the licencing process itself is pretty much the same as it was 70 years ago. I guess it's not what I consider any massive degree of change federally (state is another issue), which I am thankful for. But the laws they're coming up with are starting to get uncomfortable to me.
As far as the game in concerned, I think the UCAS would be much, much more restrictive that the US is today. CAS probably not so much, Aztlan being where it is and all.
| QUOTE |
| And 71 years ago (1933) you did not need a licence to buy a machinegun, silencer, or short barreled rifle. |
Prohibition is a bitch. Gimme my booze or I'll fill you full of lead!
| QUOTE |
| I wonder about the differences in carry laws, the shadowrun rules make no distinction between ownership, open carry, and concealed carry so to compare we should try to lump together all of our laws and not focus on the least restrictive set (ownership laws). |
That's fine. I guess my point in mentioning these things is that gun control laws tend to be very regional (as they should) here in this part of the world. Some make sense, a lot of them don't. Relating that to Shadowrun, why should a silenced, automatic pistol (read: very quiet, compact firearm) be EASIER to own and carry legally than your average assault rifle? US laws are goofy as they are and they still aren't THAT goofy. Things like that are the issue I have with the legality rules. Inconsistency.
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| We allow unlicensed concealed carry, too. |
I was not aware of that. There's enlightenment.
I think in 2064 you will see much the same as today, that each state has the right to set it's own gun ownership. In RL New york is very restrictive on gun ownership and creates such a mass of paperwork there are few stores that sell the stuff. By comparrison Pennsylvania is very gun friendly. gun shops are plentiful and most sporting goods shops, if they don't sell guns themselves do sell ammo. Getting a permit to own a hand gun is almost impossible in NY. In Pennsylvania you can buy a hand gun and walk out with it in about 20 minutes.
The UCAS adopted most of the USA constitution and faced with an "indian war" they might make it easier to get weapons since the wording of the 2nd Ammendment would seem far more prevelant with a potentially enemy state on the doorstep.
The CAS is portrayed as even more good ol' boy stuff. so would be eiser to find guns.
The UCAS adopted most of the USA constitution and faced with an "indian war" they might make it easier to get weapons since the wording of the 2nd Ammendment would seem far more prevelant with a potentially enemy state on the doorstep.
The CAS is portrayed as even more good ol' boy stuff. so would be eiser to find guns.
| QUOTE (Snow_Fox) |
| I think in 2064 you will see much the same as today, that each state has the right to set it's own gun ownership. In RL New york is very restrictive on gun ownership and creates such a mass of paperwork there are few stores that sell the stuff. By comparrison Pennsylvania is very gun friendly. gun shops are plentiful and most sporting goods shops, if they don't sell guns themselves do sell ammo. Getting a permit to own a hand gun is almost impossible in NY. In Pennsylvania you can buy a hand gun and walk out with it in about 20 minutes. The UCAS adopted most of the USA constitution and faced with an "indian war" they might make it easier to get weapons since the wording of the 2nd Ammendment would seem far more prevelant with a potentially enemy state on the doorstep. The CAS is portrayed as even more good ol' boy stuff. so would be eiser to find guns. |
I think that will all depend on the direction you see humanity taking. Do you think the pacifist mob rule continues to erode away the 2nd ammedment? Or do you think more intelligent heads will prevail? Frankly, being the optimist that I am
, I think the "I'm a victim" mentality will only get worse and further erode away the 2nd amendement... at least from the UCAS stand point. The "Indian War" won't make a difference on it. After all, why do you need a gun when the governement is there to protect you? I agree that CAS will probably remain much more like the U.S. today. I don't see Texas ever changing thier stance on gun rights.
As for megacorps like Ares. That's a tricky subject. There is something to be said for easily controlling an unarmed populace. An armed populace is a potential threat to one's power base. I could see Ares doing product lines of hunting weapons and small caliber handguns with low ammo capacity. I'd doubt they would campaign for much else to the public as it could be bad for business in more ways than one.
"Ah'm warning you, Señor Blood Spirit, you got to the count of three to get off mah lawn..."
There is no justification for omitting state and local gun laws from a comparison of todays laws and the shadowrun laws. Shadowrun, being a game, has abstracted a bit and lumped them all together. You have to use both, and really should mostly use the ones from the regions that make up the UCAS (the vast majority of the population is on the north-east coast of the USA, coincidentally where some of our most restrictive state and local gun laws are today. I agree that the CAS is likely to be less restrictive both because they are more worried about being invaded and because of thier history of somewhat less restrictive gun laws (ie today).
I would say that it seems that the shadowrun firearms ownership/carry laws are both more and less restrictive than those of today.
You need a permit for just about anything.
A much larger portion of the population are non-citizens (sinless) and can't really legally own anything at all.
The permit you need allows you to conceal carry anywhere automatically.
Smaller, quieter guns are easier to permit than big noisy ones, while today it is more of a random scattering of legalities over different gun types.
I don't know what the books say about how easy it is to get a permit, but I have alaways said it was very easy for an upstanding citizen (which mostly means anybody with a steady job), and impossible for anyone else (well except with fake id). However it is also easy for anyone to get an illegal gun, the availabilities aren't very high.
What is the leaglity of a detachable silencer? It may be that small guns with integral silencers are legal more because of a technicality than on purpose. I can easily imagine quietness being a selling point to people who don't like the noise of a firearm (buy the ares purse-wisperer for a more enjoyable firing range experience, or some such semi-baloney). Sure its stupid, but so are the current gun laws which more heavily restrict the types of guns that are very rarely used in crime (scary rifles) but not the ones that are frequently used (cheap pistols).
These changes are beleivable response to the following phenomena:
Greatly increased crime rates and reduced law enforcement overall causing upstanding citizens to demand the right to go about armed at all times. Basically the same way people claim they are buying suv's because of crumbling roads, but won't vote to fix the roads(or rather won't vote to pay to fix the roads). Thus concealed carry, small weapon, and body armor laws (today such sales are sort of extra-legally discouraged somehow I beleive, perhaps by witholding government contracts) are actually loosened for upstanding citizens by an easy to obtain licence system, however all that national registration stuff goes along with it because this is driven by fear of bad (aka poor and desperate) people with guns.
A sucessfull armed rebellion by a small fraction of the population has caused the surviving UCAS government to more severely limit weapons which are militarily usefull. Pistols aren't much good against the army so let the people have those. Basically the opposite of what I beleive is the spirit of the 2nd ammendment (I think that a pistol ban is more in line with the 2nd ammendment than an assault rifle ban because the 2nd ammendment is about fighting against armies, including our own). In fact it is quite possible that the federal government has unusually harsh restrictions on rebellion quality weapons in Seattle as they are worried about it secceding.
I would say that it seems that the shadowrun firearms ownership/carry laws are both more and less restrictive than those of today.
You need a permit for just about anything.
A much larger portion of the population are non-citizens (sinless) and can't really legally own anything at all.
The permit you need allows you to conceal carry anywhere automatically.
Smaller, quieter guns are easier to permit than big noisy ones, while today it is more of a random scattering of legalities over different gun types.
I don't know what the books say about how easy it is to get a permit, but I have alaways said it was very easy for an upstanding citizen (which mostly means anybody with a steady job), and impossible for anyone else (well except with fake id). However it is also easy for anyone to get an illegal gun, the availabilities aren't very high.
What is the leaglity of a detachable silencer? It may be that small guns with integral silencers are legal more because of a technicality than on purpose. I can easily imagine quietness being a selling point to people who don't like the noise of a firearm (buy the ares purse-wisperer for a more enjoyable firing range experience, or some such semi-baloney). Sure its stupid, but so are the current gun laws which more heavily restrict the types of guns that are very rarely used in crime (scary rifles) but not the ones that are frequently used (cheap pistols).
These changes are beleivable response to the following phenomena:
Greatly increased crime rates and reduced law enforcement overall causing upstanding citizens to demand the right to go about armed at all times. Basically the same way people claim they are buying suv's because of crumbling roads, but won't vote to fix the roads(or rather won't vote to pay to fix the roads). Thus concealed carry, small weapon, and body armor laws (today such sales are sort of extra-legally discouraged somehow I beleive, perhaps by witholding government contracts) are actually loosened for upstanding citizens by an easy to obtain licence system, however all that national registration stuff goes along with it because this is driven by fear of bad (aka poor and desperate) people with guns.
A sucessfull armed rebellion by a small fraction of the population has caused the surviving UCAS government to more severely limit weapons which are militarily usefull. Pistols aren't much good against the army so let the people have those. Basically the opposite of what I beleive is the spirit of the 2nd ammendment (I think that a pistol ban is more in line with the 2nd ammendment than an assault rifle ban because the 2nd ammendment is about fighting against armies, including our own). In fact it is quite possible that the federal government has unusually harsh restrictions on rebellion quality weapons in Seattle as they are worried about it secceding.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.