I wonder what the home invasion rates are like in Switzerland, Sweden, and Israel?

Would be interesting, but I'm not sure what there would be to learn from them. Two are fairly small with a largely homogenous population, and Israel is such a wacky mess... From what I hear jews in Israel are VERY well armed, but not so much on anyone else.

I knew a kid who tried to use a gun on a group of dudes who stole some shit from him. They charged him, one took two slugs, while the others wrestled the gun from his hand and killed him.

The one he shot lived with no complications and none of them were charged since they killed the kid in self-defense. Turned out they were the wrong people anyway...

So, yeah. Last resort of the incompetent.

Nice fable, you tell that to kids to teach them to roll over and not fight back?

They all have compulsory military service. Although there's ways out of it in Israel and it isn't universal, from what I understand.

I had a friend of the family that had to run back to Sweden to do his military service despite living in Canada.

I didn't know that about Sweden. I've heard that weekends in Switzerland look like they are going to war because of all the people boarding buses going to the range with their rifles. Hopefully people keep that up. I read an interesting paper recently discussing how golf contributed to the English concurring Scotland; people were golfing instead of practicing with bows.

There's better ways to fight back than escalation. Escalation versus submission is how a monkey thinks.

They've been doing it forever and a year, so I don't think they'll stop doing it anytime soon. It's why a lot of Army Surplus you can get in Canada is actually Swiss in origin.

Also, the Swiss, when not in the military, are in the Militia (That is, an actual Militia, not a bunch of Anti-Government nutbars like they're called in the US), and are required, by law, to have their weapon at the ready and a stockpile of ammunition ready at all times. Makes home invasion a bad idea, eh?

Personally, I'd like to see something similar in Canada, but that won't be happening anytime soon with the cultural concept of the Military here. Considering that I was dealing with classmates and schoolmates that had about the same mental capacity of a monkey...

One could try fighting on the level with 10 people, I doubt this would have a good outcome. Fighting at less than par with a group of 10 is on the way to submission.

I'm saddened every time I think about how Teddy Roosevelt decimated our Militia and destroyed its name... Some war hero.

I think Full auto battle rifles in the hands of the Militia are intended to make all invasions seem like a bad idea.

Heck I'd like to see something like that in the US, or at least like we had for the first 110 years where citizens had to procure their own military gear. Trouble is we have these pesky illegal laws and an illegal army enforcing them...

Canada has a legitimate Militia that is supplied by the Canadian Armed Forces (Soon to be split up again, to the joy of the Navy amongst others), and I've known a few members that were in it, good men and women. As well as a number of serving and veterans. Problem here is that the Canadian Populous and Politicians hate the Armed Forces of any type. I was amazed that they even signed off on new ships to be built (At least we aren't getting overpriced British Castoff Submarines that won't rise after sinking. Again.), but it was locally made, so, that's probably why.

Rural former parts of Canada will likely have hunting rifles and shotguns in gun racks on the back windows of Pick-Up Trucks just like in the CAS, there's lots of animals in Canada, and a number that will attack you (Not many, mind, but better to be forearmed and forewarned.). In cities, well, just like anywhere else in the UCAS.

The NAN is likely to be armed to the teeth expecting invasion from the "Anglos" again at any time to "Steal our land. Again. Bastards." now that their major weapon, magic, has been mitigated by Combat Mages and the like in the UCAS and CAS Military. The CAS, well, the South rose again, 'nuff said, not to mention worries of being next to Aztlan. The UCAS, well, it remains to be seen what happens with the President currently in power...

I find your "The gun is society" assertions laughable. If you need a gun to hold polite conversation with people or order a coffee, you must be a very sad person indeed. You are also sadly misinformed about home invasions in the UK, your assertion is most definitely not the case. And if armed robbers WERE to invade your home waving guns about, unless you are watching TV with a loaded gun on your lap the outcome would be exactly the same for folks with a gun in the gun cupboard/basement/wherever as for unarmed households.

I dunno about elsewhere, but home invasions tend to happen in the middle of the night when there's less people about to witness.

If they're breaking down your bedroom door, yeah, you're screwed, but if it's a case where you get woken up by the sound of the patio door downstairs breaking, I'd prefer a shotgun in the closet next to my bed than hoping the police get to my house in time.

On a larger scale, it's about people not trusting the powers that be to protect them. It's a very American attitude, really, but that's not surprising considering the country was founded by folks who intensely distrusted government.



-k

No, home invasions in the UK are multiple young men carrying clubs and knives. It's been generally noted that old men and women don't do very well in hand to hand combat with armed young men. It's also been generally noted that young thugs with knives lose vs old men and women with shotguns.

In England if you do stop the armed thugs, who are out on bail for burglary, from robbing your house you'll get arrested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13885457

Funny how the UK crime rate is among the highest in the world outside of 3rd world hellholes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law...itas-study.html

Well, given the state of non-enclave Shadowrun society, I'd be armed and practiced with everything I could get. I'd take my heavy/light pistol out for walks in my lined coat, and keep a shotgun by the bed at night, right next to the overwatch drone. Shit, one look outside those corp towers and I'd never want to be unarmed.

I don't think there was ever a case in my lifetime when it would have been useful to have the soldiers use their weapons. However I was told of a case where a soldier shot at the ceiling hoping to scare a hobo who was verbally abusing a visiting official. Hopefully it only tore a hole in the glass ceiling.
So I guess we're safer with soldiers carrying empty guns. It's just security theater anyway.

Well another thread bites the dust...

Well, at the time he was doing his mandatory military period, around some artillery training camp in the middle of nowhere (a 155 mm gun and it's shells are big, heavy, hard to steal and of no use for most criminals), and later on a military base in Germany.

Those were not really places where the probability of needing them was significant - and he never needed them.

In Germany, actually most break-ins happen between 12 and 1 at lunchtime, strangely enough. At least that's the last thing I remember reading.

I find interesting how in Brazil when I was a kid you'd never hear of cases of bullying. It just became common now with so many american movies showing school kids being bullyed and we all know kids learn by example...
Anyway, trying to steer the thread back on topic.

The urban areas of the Sixth World are now crowded because A LOT of land was returned back to the wild (either because of Magic, NAN, whatever) and these wild lands also have Awakened critters living there, so yes, I expect every small village/town in the middle of nowhere to have its citizens armed with some REALLY heavy shotguns and hunting rifles (have you seen the Juggernaut? Just imagine one of those beasts walking towards your home).

Also, you must take into account the situation of the law enforcement. It's no longer a public service, it's a private business, which means that the "police" won't arrest someone unless it's good for business, so I believe a lot of people would be armed either to prevent crimes of opportunities as well as to inflict them.

Just my two anyway.

I've always thought this was a classic cyberpunk and SR theme, not trusting authorities in anything especially security. Now perhaps it would be different for a more post-cyberpunk or "future imperfect" setting.

Beautiful set of points. As to dangerous critters, I don't think shotguns would be used much. I think there would be more rifles built on the "Sniper rifle" base since its base damage would make for a better dangerous game weapon. Perhaps even the autocannon would see use in some homes.

How would you hold polite conversation with a large thug who thinks you should give him all your stuff and that your wife should be his plaything for a while? That is where the gun makes society possible, when others decide they don't care to conform to civility. If armed robbers were to invade my home waving guns about I would certainly defend myself with the loaded pistol that is on the sofa next to me; that was a good point, firearms locked away with ammo stored separately are not much use in home or self defense. I make sure I have one close at hand or on me at all times and places lawful (almost everywhere).

Guns don't make society. You can argue that the fear of the law might prevent us to going back to Anarchy or the strong one submiting over the weaker, but it's not guns. In most countries, it's the fear of the being caught and punished that prevent most people of commiting a crime. Of course, drugged people have lost any common sense that would prevent this and that's the main reason why so many governments go heavy against drug dealing.

Remember which country we're talking about. I'm sure they'll have plenty of time to throw down their weapons and surrender.

(Sorry, could not resist. I am a bad person.)

Not just the USA. Trust me on that one.Very classic Cyberpunk and SR, even Sci-Fi with some authors. Hell, look at Firefly as a modern example (See how much support a dying community got in "Train Job"?).I know this is the stereotype, but remember that it wasn't the soldiers that surrendered, it was the politicians. The soldiers held on for a long, long time afterwards.

Fear of the police's guns is what you are referring to I take it. Or do you think violent criminals think "oh darn someone can identify it was me, now that the unarmed police are here I guess I'm going to jail". There is a point though that the tool that levels the playing field does not have to be a firearm, that is just the modern tool of choice. Spears and swords worked well in times past, but UK's crime rate hints that clubs make a poor replacement; Yankee US cities, UK and Australia's crime rates would indicate more than just the professionals need to be able to enforce a civil society.

What gives runners more pause security guards with a flashlight (assuming mundanes) or a Renraku Samurai team armed to the teeth? If guns(or other suitable arms) were not society then where is a society with no guns, not in the hands of civilians, law enforcement, military, or any armories within said country?

I'm going to regret continuing discussion in this thread because it's become about people's actual opinions, and not the game. Frankly some of you need to get a blog.



It depends on the style of play at the table, and the objectives in an individual game. But yes, a gun is more dangerous than a flashlight.

Back on topic!

After reading through the Sixth World Almanac I've had a few interesting reminders of in game stuff about laws and society. Society has suffered several major pandemic level style diseases-mostly Influenza style stuff; and society has seen the intent of laws as we understand them change-especially in Western style Democracies, which had traditionally seen individual rights as very important. These have been eroded steadily, and replaced with laws that are much friendlier to Corporate entities, and one would assume the governments themselves. I'll come back to this when I have some more time.

This is a macabre suggestion but keep the idea that there are gun-free-zones. Then turn up the dystopia by making mass murders happen in such places (thus mimicking real life).

I've seen more than one thread on here talk about the appropriate level of arming one's self just to go to the meet with Mr. J so as to not appear too distrustful or too weak.

Please be careful not to use your loaded gun should you get into a fight with your wife. The vast majority of gun homicides in the US are a result of domestic disputes, far far more than those caused by armed burglars.

Should a large thug ever break into my apartment to take all my stuff and use my girlfriend as a plaything, I might wish I had listened to Daylen and got me a Great Equalizer ™ to sort his uncivil arse out, but for now I am not quaking in my boots waiting for the Big Bad Thug to blow my door down. Maybe I live in a nice neigbourhood, but where I live there are no armed home invasion rape gangs roaming the streets, and if there were I am sure their capture would become a top priority for police. For your average burglar, upping the ante to rape and/or murder is not a recipe for the quiet life.

Of course in the bad old '70's of Shadowrun, the situation would be very different ...

I'm actually looking to buy a gun once I get a job. I'm not expecting to use it, but should the Big Bad Thug bust into my domicile I hope to bust out his torso before he does anything too untoward.

Just remember our opinions on things when we *ARE* the Big Bad Thug in-game doing the door busting down.

A Colt Asp doesn't seem luck much, until you add Gel or Stick 'n' Shock rounds to the playing field. (Or a Defiance T-250 if you only allow SnS as a Shotgun Ammo Type.).

Or, for the properly paranoid and surprising types, "Front Towards Ene..." *BOOM*

Really? The FBI says there were 12,996 murders in the US in 2010. 2,425 of the victims were the husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, sister, brother, boyfriend or girlfriend of the offender. 10,062 of the victims were strangers, acquaintances or "unknown". Acquaintances includes guys in the other drug dealing gang or your fellow gang-banger.

People who kill family members also tend to get identified at a rather high rate compared to gang bangers who stage drive-by shootings in stolen cars, so its unlikely that the the numbers are really that much higher.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime.../10shrtbl10.xls

I would be interesting to find those numbers out for countries that have stricter firearm policies. In any case this isn't all gun-crime, it's all homicides - and it's not clear whether it's only premediated murder or also manslaughter.

Now what I find quite disconcerting is how many wifes and girlfriends are killed compared to husbands and boyfriends.

Also, there are only 176 cases even categorized as gangland killings, which means that apparently US gangs aren't even that bad . Obviously some of those might end up in the other categories such as drug-related, etc.

wikipedia link

It's tricky to relate homicide to gun prevalence. Israel is heavily armed, and has a high-ish homicide rate. The Netherlands have extremely restrictive firearms policies, and a low homicide rate. Switzerland has an even lower homicide rate but everyone is supposed to have a rifle. The USA has a disturbingly high rate for a first-world country.

Pretty much all the studies I've seen tend to link homicide rates to education and income levels more than firearm ownership.



-k

Really, personal insults?

That is because it is not the dominant factor.

Where guns are present, they will be the tool of choice, where they are not, other tools are used. Knives and 2x4s are very effective at killing people, especially weaker ones. Blaming guns for murder is like blaming spoons for making Micheal Moor into a fat turkey.

It all comes down to in SR and in RL--who is responsible for your safety. You, the government, the corps (HA!), or <insert divine being of choice>?
In the RL US what you find is that there is a good split between what the government, corporations/business and individuals are responsible for. The Government is really responsible for making sure we don't die from poisoned air, traffic safety, anarchy or invasion. Businesses are only responsible for the saftey of their products with the caveat that they are being used properly. Some municipalities like Chicago have tried to go after gun manufacturers for gun crimes under the theory that the manufacturer in selling the weapons to the public is creating a public health hazard. Those lawsuits got thrown out though. The individual is left with being responsible for the rest.

In SR, the main change is that the business will feel the need to protect its employees. This is why they'd prefer that their employees live in corporate housing. It is safer, and they can keep tabs on them. For the employee-they get subsidized housing, protection and lots of other benefits. For the govrnment--depending on its capability it does what its always done. Though given the amount of balkanization, the governments of SR are pretty much neuttered except where invasion and traffic saftey are concerned. Individuals in SR are pretty much in the same boat an individual today is, but with magic, paracritters, matrix and cyber/bio monsters out there defending oneself against a determined attacker is almost pointless unless it is just some low level ganger/thug.

The point was to determine whether the availability of guns has any impact on the distribution of victims. For instance, by reasoning previously seen in this thread we should see more murdered husbands in a country with guns, because it's harder for women to kill without them. Or put differently, the ratio of husbands to wives being murdered should move even further in (dis)favour of the wives where no guns are available.

On the other hand, one might say that if the distribution stays the same with or without guns, then obviously the availability of firearms to a perceived "weaker" party doesn't actually (statistically) serve to "protect" (actually: equalize, because that statistic says nothing about prevented murders) them at all.

It would really be interesting to see if the gun laws actually have any impact on the statistics, or whether it's all social factors, etc. For the US such statistics probably exist. It would be especially interesting to see comparisons of states with comparable social distributions but differing firearm laws. When I find the time I'm going to do some googling.

On the anecdotal side, from the profilic multiple shooting cases that made big news in Germany, I believe most have been committed by men with legal firearms, or their (semi)-adult children (in fact children of gun owners are big deal in German media). One recent case had a woman shoot her husband and? I forget, some other family members. In that case both she and her husband were avid sport shooters and each owned several guns.

Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
And stupid, poor people kill more people than educated, wealthy people kill people.

The third phrase is too long, better just stay with the first two.

Stopping someone that lives with you from killing you will likely not change by the presence or absence of firearms because of the nature of the encounter and most people's carry habits. Having a pistol unloaded in another room does little good when an argument goes bad and the larger husband has a hold on his wife with one hand and a weapon in the other. Also, there are psychological problems involved which complicate things. If such a study came up with real results it could be interesting, but I doubt that will happen.



There are all sorts of interesting studies about the States. Careful about the ones that use "trace" data, even the FBI says that such data should not be used for statistics as some do. Also, be wary of "gun crimes", being robbed is being robbed, assault is assault, and murder is murder. Gun crime stats are simply to fool people with numbers.

But if educated, wealthy people really, really want to they can kill EVEN MOAR people and likely as not they'll even find a stupid person to pull the trigger for them, so they'll get away with it.

Hyperbole, though.

@Daylen: Probably history should teach that statistics are about as ambiguous as guns (for those of us for whom they have an ambiguous nature). They are either really powerful in evaluating something, or really useless or really dangerous in a political context. So... in theory, it should be possible to make a meaningful statistic about this question.

I want to provide one more thought to the gun=society idea: Apart from any ethical questions my main problem with (in the extreme case) giving a gun to everyone and telling them to always openly carry it is that individual empowerment does not work on a societal, or even on a group level - and it makes a society impossible to police, in the extreme case. For instance, in the US there have in recent history, let's say 50-60 years, been various riots. What if each of those rioters had been armed? The imagined outcome is critically close to civil war in every case.

I'm not saying there aren't up-sides to this: I can totally relate to the thought that a state should never be able to rule against its citizens, and that they should be able to defend themselves.

However, power is a reality, and power needs to assert itself, or else it ain't power. And the more force it needs to do that, the more bloody the conflict. Sounds like an invitation to become obedient sheep, but it's not, we're still talking about democratic states, here. So the resistance to the powers that be - due to their authority based on the will of the voters - needs a moral high ground, or else it's just bullying, and that means it can't be violent, or at least can't be the originator of violence, or at least can't take it to that level where the rest of society will shun them entirely. But angry people are very, very often originators of violence, and in this case I would prefer them to be unarmed - rocks and clubs, while quite effective on an indididual level - just aren't as dangerous as firearms.

So, this brings us back to what doesn't go well with firearms: Alcohol, stupidity and angry people. Anything else?

All I'm saying is that for me there isn't a GOOD answer to this question, but there is a nominally SAFER one - and that brings us back to statistics. Which... aren't available in a satisfactory manner both with regards to information density and lack of bias.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Samuel Clemens.

Actually, when I started playing Cyberpunk 2020, the GM asked where we were going to go shopping to get ready for a job... The first words out of my mouth were, "Where else? Bob's Booze, Bullets, and Butts!" "Huh?" "Oh yeah, Bob's got all the ammo, alcohol, and tobacco needs you'd want!" "Oh yeah, alcohol and loaded firearms, this is going to go well."

It became one of our favorite stores. I really should introduce it into a Shadowrun game sometime.

Reminds me of the "Department of Truth Enhancement" card from the Netrunner card game : "We don't lie, we use statistics".

That's it... my characters are going everywhere armed. If society teaches me it's possible & allowed, I'm doing it.

You mean your characters haven't always anyhow?

Of course, with bone lacing/killing hands/spells, you're always armed for CQB at the very least.

Nope... due to all the AAA meetings, I've had to go without weapons 99% of the time. I've survived by wearing good armor, using improvised weapons, & making sure the meets don't go bad.

With imagination, anything can be a weapon. The pepper shaker on the dinner table alone can be a damned effective incapacitant. Is that a shotglass you just drank out of, turn it upside down and show them a "Magic Trick". The windows are armored and load bearing, but the frames are *NOT* designed to take the full weight of a person, defenstrate yourself. And I haven't even gotten to the bar yet.