Heh. Not by a long-gun.

So, at one hand you have Recife with a murder rate of 87 per group of 100 thousand and 1.5 million people living in it and it is considered one of the most violent places of Brazil, on the other hand you have Seattle. Let's just say that the Seattle metroplex has half that murder rate but given that the nicest parts of town don't actually have 43 murders per group of 100 thousand people, how much killing do we need in Redmond and Puyallup to reach this average?

"Next stop: Back on topic station!"

Some guy called Johnson pays me good money to do it...

OK, mostly it is easier to wait until the house is empty...both IRL an IC. Which is probably why home invasions are quite rare.

I had a counter-strike league member from Ontario. His family was attacked by two gunmen outside a theatre in broad daylight after a matinee.

His dad is former Black Watch Canada, their Spec Ops. He disarmed one guy and broke his arm, then used the pistol he took from him to club the other guy unconscious, then field stripped the pistol and waited for the cops.

After 11 hours in a police station he was let go with no charges and a stern warning to not use excessive force when dealing with criminals. While Canada may not have Castle laws, they seem to have a good sense of right and wrong.

also, the guys dad got on our CS forums and posted that he felt like an idiot, attacking two armed men with his family present. In retrospect he feels he shouldve just given them their wallets and they probably wouldve just left, but his instincts kicked in and he attacked them before they said what they wanted.

I personally wish more criminals would get their asses kicked (or shot) when they try even small crimes (like mugging) against random citizens.

In California the guy probably wouldve gotten arrested, but in Texas or Tennessee he wouldve been given a medal

Jackson TN
0.11 murders per 1000 comes out to just 11 murders per 100k. I guess we are small fish here. More than twice the national average, but nothing compared to your Brazil cesspools

We do have quite a few cooks. The two idiots who blogged about how they were going to kill Obama were from around here. In fact about three months before they were arrested one of them applied at my company for an IT job. His interview was with our head of Support, who is Black. Apparently the wierdo did not act racist at all, but their interview took them to lunch where the guy showed our Head of Support his scoped rifle in the trunk of his car.

Glad we didnt hire him... kinda looks bad for a company if their employees get arrested for shooting sprees and Presidential Assassination conspiracies.

Demonstrating that you haven't been keeping up with reality.

In the US, if your door is busted down by an armed intruder then 9 out of 10 times (2007, no-knock entry warrants issued vs crime reports of armed intruders) they're the police. While exact numbers are hard to get, at least 2% and as much as 20% of the time the police have entered the wrong place.

If you shoot a policeman who has entered the wrong home on a no-knock entry, you will go to prison. At least, assuming your case follows the precedence of all those that have happened already.

Applying a large hammer to bring my last post onto SR the game...

This has ramifications for when people enter your home in SR. Does KE require a warrant? Does it require a specialized warrant for a no-knock or knock-and-enter?

I submit for working theory that the answer is "yes" in high lifestyle areas, "sometimes" in medium lifestyle, and "no" (or at best "rarely") in all other conditions.

At the same time, the likelihood of violent criminal entry also increases as the lifestyle goes down.

The end result is one more case of catch-22 for the dystopia. The resident should be armed, but needs to figure out darn quick if it's KE or some other large body that /will/ seek retribution, or if it's "just" another gang entry.

Be careful that your Shadowrun GM doesn't see that.



I live in California and I know I recently had an experience that leads me to think you might not be too wrong. In short, I was attacked last summer and because of my choice of self-defense, the local DA would not file assault charges on my assailant. Without getting into too much detail, I was fortunate enough to prevent harm to myself as well as my assailant. My assailant was at my home in violation of a restraining order, had already smashed my windshield, and attacked me with a bike lock. However, my choice to use a sweep and then pin my assailant, instead of a number of harmful techniques I know and train, caused the DA to tell me they couldn't take that to a Jury. In the end, my assailant agreed to plead guilty to violating the restraining order, and is supposed to reimburse me for the windshield; cash I'll never see.

On one hand, the courts actions made me really wish I had made more aggressive choices when defending myself so that at least there would have been some ramifications for my assailant. On the other hand, as you said, I'd likely have wound up in jail for defending myself from assault with a deadly weapon.

Bringing this back to SR, loop holes and location specifics are great tools for both a GM and PCs.

Which leaves the question: What's the difference between a Gang Robbing your house and a No-Knock Raid?

OK, heading into politics. But it does leave a very big question that does pertain to Shadowrun...

Do the AA+ Megas have to announce that they're "Cops" or "Security Forces" when performing a legal raid? The Phone Police in Shadowrun are very tactical! And you better believe that not paying your Doc Wagon bill involves some really heavy "Collection Agents".

Given the nature of extraterritoiality I would think that its often in a corps best interest not to announce that they are raiding a place they don't own. Of course, if they own it, they make the rules regarding raids.

So, in either case I say, no they don't announce themselves.

Besides, isn't that usually a job for a Shadowrunner team?

Actually, that is not entirely correct (Shooting a policeman for entering the wrong house)...
I keep up just fine. If the cops broke down the wrong door, their warrant is invalid (wrong door after all) and they can be shot. At least in the states where I choose to live, anyways. You may have some issues, but you will likely not go to jail. The cops would be wrong in that (very specific) sitiation that you describe (Which happens even less than you may think).

Not for a legitimate and legal act. That's why they have Sec-Teams so heavily kitted out.

Shadowrunners are for stuff that is illegal, immoral, both, or is likely to look bad on the Whatever O'Clock News.

Repossessing a cyberlimb from someone who hasn't paid their bill? Sec-Team.

Repossessing a Type-O Heart from Granny in the middle of a Residential Zone, Shadowrunners.

You are indeed Heartless, Canray...

Fastest growing population segment in the US that gets a CHP/CWP is women. Many gun shops that offer the courses find 60+% of the signups are women. When my wife & I took our class a few years ago, there were 12 people, only 4 guys (counting me).

I know this might get feathers ruffled but if you openly carry (where legal), the almost universal response of anyone thinking of being a bad guy is to look for another target upon seeing the openly carried (in a holster) firearm. Heck, doing so prevented me from getting mugged at an ATM. The bad guy (who was sneaking up on me) immediately ran off once he saw I was carrying. He kept looking back as he ran away to see if I was going to chase or shoot him.

The FBI has done studies and found that criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed so as minimize the criminal's chances of being hurt while committing the crime. Doesn't bother me in the slightest if the person next to me is armed. I'm usually armed myself.

Disarmament is much like Prohibition... a lot of hot air and still ignored.

As for how the law looks at things, like in real life, SR Law will vary by the country & corporation. I can see the UCAS & CAS still holding to the same general principles held in those areas today. I can see Seattle mimicking modern day with the PTB trying to restrict firearms, perhaps were even successful in recent SR history.

PS: executing a no-knock warrant on my house will result in people getting shot. I would be obligated to defend my wife & children against unknown assailants. Besides in VA, invading a home at night is considered to be done so with lethal intent. Doing so during the day just means you want to rob me. Go figure eh?

Sure, why else do you think such ads are done? Because gun merchants dream of lower crime rates?

I could have done the study for a tenth the price, a hundredth the time, and came up with the exact same answer.

"I want a safe work environment, so when I'm raping and robbing people in their own homes, I want to be sure they don't have any weapons at all. After all, that's my 'workplace'. You slow down for road construction workers to keep them safe, disarm yourselves to keep me safe. It's only responsible, after all, I have rights you know."

*Headdesk* Damn, my cynicism is getting to ME now. Either that, or it's because I just watched "Dirty Harry" recently.

No, GRANNY is Heartless. Now.

I don't get it. If I have a firearm, and I want to criminally interact with another citizen who is similarly armed, but holstered, why would his weapon frighten me off? Wouldn't I just wait till his back is turned and shoot him before he can draw his own weapon? Seems like the logical thing to do, in RL or SR.

Well, most criminals aren't out to kill someone, they're out to get money/valuables/etc.
Intimidating an unarmed citizen with a gun is a lot less risky than attempting to shoot an armed one and hope they are disabled/dead before they can respond.

Also, police forces generally spend fewer resources looking for a mugger than a killer.

That doesn't even take into account morals. Just because a person is willing to steal from another human, doesn't mean they want to commit murder.

Pun Police! Freeze, scumbag! You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of fun. You have the right to speak to a comediant. If you cannot afford a comediant, one will be appointed for you.

Meh, I think there must be a statistic somewhere that people defending their homes with a potentially lethal response have a higher chance of in turn getting shot/killed by an intruder.

On the other hand, I do understand where the sentiment is coming from. Statistically, it might be safer to not defend yourself, because that way you might lose your stuff, but not your life, BUT in those cases where the loss of life was the goal, then being able to defend sure seems like a better alternative.

Now IMHO the best argument for gun control is stilll that, in all those areas where the general crime rate is low, your gun-toting spouse is the most likely person to kill you.

The other is that a violent response to a violent crime could very well trigger another violent response from another person who believes that in fact the initial response was the crime itself.

For instance: assume you are armed on a street and hear a shooting, with likely as not several shooters, around the corner. Then a guy with a gun in hand comes running around the corner. What do you do?

IIRC there's an FBI statistic that self-defense with a firearm is actually the safest response, then compliance and then (much less safe) self defense with means other than firearms.

Also, wouldn't people who want to kill their significant other just choose other devices in the absence of guns, e.g the old-fashioned kitchen knife? I guess the gun is in most cases the means, not the cause.

No, there's not an FBI statistic of that. It's afrequently claimed stat of gun supporters, the statistical support of it has some serious problems, and debating it will take this way off topic and maybe bring up moderator response. So leave it as "maybe".

On the other hand, the FBI does track weapons used for murders. Approximately 50% of husbands and 60% of wives used firearms. (actual number +/- 3%, 1982-1999) About 20% of men use knives instead, and about 25% beat (with fists) or kick their wives to death. Roughly 35% of women used knives. The remaining 5% (both sides) are bats and skillets and run over with cars and poison and all that sort of thing.

Heh, firearms promote gender equality in spousicide, that's nice, at least.

In Shadowrun I would definitely recommend everyone to get a gun, because you have reliable non-lethal ammo that will still get the job done.

It's never come up in-game, but I've already ruled in my own head that having "Less Than Lethal Ammunition" (Gel Rounds, Stick 'n' Shock) in a firearm in the UCAS is taken heavily into consideration by the police responders, possibly just to the point of taking a statement in a similar vein as having used a Taser.

Regular ammunition will make them a little harsher on the person doing the shooting, hauled down to the interrogation room for questioning and statement taking. It's "Lethal", but with armoured clothing being so prevalent it's understandable. Also, you might not be able to afford the more expensive Low Lethality rounds.

Outright lethal rounds (Hi-Ex, EX-Ex, APDS) will get you hauled in, and you better hope you're a SINner so you can have a Lawyer present to explain to the nice police officers why you have such ammo. And, if it ever goes to a court case, is considered proof of "Premeditation" for attempted murder or actual murder depending on the outcome.

I also have the "Five-Day Waiting Period" for pistols at legitimate shops, but with Gun Haven Heaven out now, I might retract that for the "Civilian" pistols that don't use box magazines.

My post was not referring to a person defending their home. But rather to the earlier statement that basically equated all criminals to killers. My point was that just because someone is a criminal does not mean that they are ready to cross that line. Even a criminal that is carrying a firearm that they plan to use in their crime, such as armed robbery.

When it comes to self defense people tend to act based on instincts and are less concerned with long therm ramifications at the moment. That changes what they will or won't do in the moment.

Point being the victim does not know the criminals intent. Is it to rob, rape and kill? Or just a few of those? And would a criminal lie about his/her intentions?

Back OT---My guess is that the corps would use runners for unannounced visits where the legal costs outweigh the cost of just hiring runners to dump the person at a nearby corporate facility (or mutually agreed location). Usually in the low life style areas or worse. Those jobs of course would be more like bounty hunting than shadowrunning.

I see potential in an urban bounty hunter game. It could be like SWAT 2 where you manage your own SWAT team.

to respond to theo riginal idea,
I'm a woman
I RL have a concealed carry permit
I carry.
I go to the range regulalry. if I'm going to carry a weapon I requiremyself to be proficent with it. anything less is irresponsible.

I've commented in enough threads her that for women the problem is less carrying a weapon than it is having some where to carry as our fashion is not as accomadating as men's clothing.

I live in Pennsylvania now which is very gun friendly and it is hard to get liquor. I use to live in NY where it is easy to get a drink and hard to get a gun, as others have discussed.

my standard line has been:
New York would rather have you drunk than armed.
PA would rather have you armed than drunk. I'm a New Yorker.

Sorry Snow Fox, I really derailed us this time.

You needz the elan with stick&shock .

What people tend to forget when discussing the deterrence value of small arms: Guns are portable valuables. Flashing your modded Predator (or expensive cyber, drones, foci...) might scare off some gangers, but it might also give them ideas about taking said weapon from your cold, dead hands.

I just had this conversation with someone the other day. If I have a visible firearm I would be prioritized as a target, and if someone is surprise attacking me, he can probably kill me if he plans it out right.

So, when I think about this in relation to role playing games, I guess it means that random gangers attacking player characters would probably prioritize their attacks on whomever appears to be the most heavily armed. As a GM, I think sometimes there's a certain amount of feeling that in order to keep things fair you should have enemies attack all the player characters. But when you think about it, they should probably prioritize whomever looks scariest and try to take that person down as fast as they can.

Absolutely. NPCs are not stupid... well most of them aren't. Take down the worst foe right away, before he can kak you back.

This is the way NPCs work in my games.

Sadly Snow_Fox, you live on the wrong side of Pennsylvania, or I'd be doing my impression of Slammo! hitting on NetCat.

6 hours (ish) each way is a bit much of a drive even for a gamer girl who shoots. Are you on the PAFOA.org forums too?

Cordially,

Eric

Same with mine, but sometimes, you just need to split them. In a recent fight scene my Players got into, I had two grunts on the roof, and the PC mage levitated herself and the adept to the roof. She didn't see the orks, so she dropped the adept right in front of them. I opted that one would distract the adept in melee (Adept had a P-93, grunt had plastic bones), while the other moved away and shot the mage.

It's also important to remember that different NPCs will evaluate the level of threat posed by PCs differently. Without cyberscanners handy, or assensing the PCs all the time, NPC groups will be left to judge based on the actions and appearances of the PCs.

Not to mention, different NPCs will use different tactics anyway. One group might think, "Geek the small squishy guys first so we can concentrate on the big tough things." Others might use the, "Kill that fraggin' Troll now," mentality. Or any number of other options.

I find that in most situations the PCs help me to determine the target based on rough ideas I've got for the NPCs. That gives them tactics appropriate to the NPC group, but also keeps the PCs from knowing what to always expect.

In Real Life, the bad guys typically choose another target if their first target is armed.

Why?

Because if they miss / screw up, they will be the target, typically of the person they tried to shoot and/or that person's friends.

Again, it's safer (and less risky) to go after unarmed opponents or ones who don't look like they can be threatening if armed.

Doesn't always apply, though. Sometimes you want to send a message, so you go after the toughest group around. Otherwise, yeah, it makes the most sense to go after the softest target you can.

And doesn't apply at all if they are attackign you. Then you hit the toughest and most dangerous SOB and be done with it.

You'd offer to take her on a date unless she was already seeing the toaster?
Like beating up the biggest mo'fo in a prison yard?

Pretty much, yeah. Once he goes down, either everyone hits you and you don't live long enough to care, or everyone backs off.

Mental Note: Don't go to prison.

Additional: Stop writing and speaking out mental notes.

Best advice you can give yourself.

Yeah, but in your game that would translate to them not attacking the player characters. If they do attack the player characters, it wouldn't make sense to pile on the Face while the big cybered guys with enormous firearms shoot you in the back of the head.

Kind of building off of this post, I've been reading the Aztlan book of late and I've hit the section where they talk about carrying in Aztlan proper. Keep in mind that this is for 2055 or so, so it's a little dated...

The general idea there seems to be that sure, you can carry whatever you want, but there are two things that work against you: the cops will probably be carrying gear manlier than what you're carrying, and they're not afraid to escalate and thusly, kill nearby civvies. Cause Aztlan law says all of the collateral damage is your fault.

Kind of puts a damper on the joy in toting around a mini-gun, doesn't it?

Documented incidents indicate that for the most part criminals simply choose another target, sometimes much later as well because it takes time to get back into the right frame of mind. In places like chicago/detroit there have been incidents where police have been targeted for their weapons; but so far I have yet to hear about any nonLEOs targeted as such.

IRL I OC at times, but in game I would never OC and don't understand why anyone would. It brings attention from law enforcement in basically every area that SR normally happens and what PC wants LEOs asking for his SIN and licenses and permits (whether needed or not).

Talk about a 180, from no carry to anything goes!

In rl most street meat criminals see a gun as posturing to be repsonded to. If you point a weapon at them they will most likely not back down, they aren't that smart, but see it as a challenge to me met, so if you're going to draw, do it with the full knowledge you're going to pull the trigger, anything else, and you're an idiot. In my years carrying I've had my hand on the gun a couple of times. I've drawn it twice. The person each time was unaware of their danger but they were in that zone that I was ready. I've never had to point it at someone.

The saving grace is that most street meat go gangers aren't very good shots. Look at the news when idiots hit bystanders because they can't shoot straight and so on.

Heh. Saving grace for the intended target. Not so much for the bystander.

Since I'm assuming I'm the intended target....