Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Todd Montgomery <tmont@****.WVU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns
Date:	Fri, 5 Nov 1993 10:21:28 -0500

Message no. 1 Head Case asked:
> Gotta question for ya: Would most of the heavy pistols of 2054 have internal
> hammers much like the glocks of today have or would it be the same cock back
to
> fire mechanism?

Interesting question. A little while ago I read an article off the Usenet
newsgroup rec.guns that talked about electronic firing. Very interesting.
It seems that some bright soul has actually done something similar to what
CP 2020 said in one of the Chromebooks about Electrical discharges and using
that as a primer. I thought that with the advantages of this kind of thing
(Less moving parts, no need for decocking, etc.), not to mention the way this
would go with smartlinks, would make it the standard of the SR gun community.
Of course this is all opinion.....

-- Quiktek
-- Todd Montgomery
tmont@****.wvu.edu
tmont@***.wvu.edu
un032507@*******.wvnet.edu

From:	Laughing Boy <JLR@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject:	GUNS!!!
Date:	Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:38:18 -0700

Message no. 2 Look if you don't like the rules for guns, or armor, or magic or anything else.
..CHANGE EM!!! No one says you have to go by the rules exactly!!! It's a
game!!! So stop spending two weeks+ on whether or not heavy armor works or not
or some other subject. Move on!!

_______________________________________________
I "Elvis the Dark God Above, Below and I
I sometimes Sideways!"-Laughing boy I
I I
I "Elvis, long may he reign, his power I
I is eternal"-Laughing boy I
-----------------------------------------------

From:	Matt <mosbun@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:	Re: GUNS!!!
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 1994 09:27:32 -0500

Message no. 3 Look if you don't like the rules for guns, or armor, or magic or anything else.
..CHANGE EM!!! No one says you have to go by the rules exactly!!! It's a
game!!! So stop spending two weeks+ on whether or not heavy armor works or not
or some other subject. Move on!!

On the other hand, no one's forcing you to listen in. If you don't like
debating rules, I'd suggest signing off the list.

matt

From:	What's this button do? <GRAFF85@********.CORTLAND.EDU>
Subject:	Re: GUNS!!!
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 1994 11:42:20 -0400

Message no. 4 >On the other hand, no one's forcing you to listen in. If you don't like
>debating rules, I'd suggest signing off the list.
>
>matt

my my my.. that almost sounds like a flame to me?

*Roasting marshmallow's by that one*

--Phlat <g>

From:	Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: GUNS!!!
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 1994 14:58:22 -0400

Message no. 5 On Fri, 8 Apr 1994, Matt wrote:

(Why is this seperated by a tab? It always wraps...)
> Look if you don't like the rules for guns, or armor, or magic or anything
else.
> ..CHANGE EM!!! No one says you have to go by the rules exactly!!! It's a
> game!!! So stop spending two weeks+ on whether or not heavy armor works or
not
> or some other subject. Move on!!
>
> On the other hand, no one's forcing you to listen in. If you don't like
> debating rules, I'd suggest signing off the list.

Now, now, Matt, be nice. You both have valid points. Now, me, I
just start ignoring threads when they've gone that long -- but there are
times that I wish I could just bang the participants' heads together and
scream at them to use their GM perogative and do it their own way!
My personal vote, though our Fearless Leader and DEATH are really
the only votes that count, would be to let a thread go until its either no
longer related to Shadowrun, or dissolves into flaming.
Opinions are like assholes. You can tell me there's something
_wrong_ with mine if you want, but _don't_ try to change it!

============================================
|| "I don't want to change the world ||
|| I don't want the world to change me." ||
|| -Ozzy Osbourne ||
==============<jdfalk@****.com>

From:	Matt <mosbun@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:	Re: GUNS!!!
Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 1994 17:24:45 -0500

Message no. 6 >my my my.. that almost sounds like a flame to me?

>*Roasting marshmallow's by that one*

Seems rather silly to me to get on to a List that debates SR rules, among
other things, and then start preaching about how it's silly to debate rules.
Not only does rules discussions help clarify rules, but it helps to generate
house rules for the parts of the game thatseem wrong to people.

Matt

From:	"J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject:	Guns
Date:	Mon, 16 May 1994 13:27:22 +0100

Message no. 7 Spotted a strange thing about SR guns in general...
The smaller it is,the smaller ammo it loads...

Now the only holdout (derringer) i'd use would be one that could
DROP someone attacking me,not tickle them.
Most holdouts sold nowadays are BIG callibre (cop .357 derringer
for example)

So...
use damage code for ammo type, but alter frame.
A Holdout gun loading heavy ammo would really KICK...
holdout ammo moved UP two classes gives recoil +2,damage 9M
A Heavy gun in holdout callibre would be a perfect target pistol.
Heavy moved down two classes,TN-2,damage 4L.
A large automatic pistol in light calibre with long barrel and
heavy frame.down one class,TN-1,damage 6L.
GENERALLY
each class ammo moved up,recoil +1,
each class moved down,TN -1...
conc as gun normally
range as gun normally
Ammo in gun stepped up/down by GM.
(small bullet,big gun...lots of ammo.25+)
(holdout/heavy has 1,maybe 2 shots)

CHOPPER.
Newsflash
Metahuman looses control of car and plows into
crowds...driver admits " I wuzzant thinkin' wot i woz doin"
Headline
CARELESS ORC COSTS LIVES!

From:	Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
Subject:	Guns - Reply
Date:	Tue, 17 May 1994 12:29:46 +0200

Message no. 8 >Spotted a strange thing about SR guns in general...
>The smaller it is,the smaller ammo it loads...

That appears to be FASA's idea of weapons: the smaller, the less punch
they pack.
Except if you look at that one-shot shotgun thing (forgot its name) from
the NAGRL. Nice weapon, can drop someone straight away if you use it
well.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Gurth + In this bright future +
+ (jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl) + You can't forget your past +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From:	Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Tue, 17 May 1994 11:24:49 -0700

Message no. 9 On Tue, 17 May 1994, Gurth wrote:

> >Spotted a strange thing about SR guns in general...
> >The smaller it is,the smaller ammo it loads...
>
> That appears to be FASA's idea of weapons: the smaller, the less punch
> they pack.
> Except if you look at that one-shot shotgun thing (forgot its name) from
> the NAGRL. Nice weapon, can drop someone straight away if you use it
> well.

Funny, the real world's like that too. In general, the smaller
the gun, the lass ammo it holds, and the lower powered it is. Maybe
because larger power requires larger cartridges, and larger guns, and
longer barrels? Could that be it?
Course, a very small gun with one or two big cartridges will
work. That's why I give the Walther Palm Pistol 8M (It fores a 9M round
but it has a short barrel (very short) so the Force is down One).
The Walther PB-120 from FOF has a concealment of 8 with a 10
round magazine and does 6L. This is about right for a Walther PPK (.380,
7+1 rounds, a bit bigger than hand sized).
Ivy K

From:	"It's but a flesh wound." <AM77423@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Tue, 17 May 1994 18:30:33 -0500

Message no. 10 >>Spotted a strange thing about SR guns in general...
>>The smaller it is,the smaller ammo it loads...
>
>That appears to be FASA's idea of weapons: the smaller, the less punch
>they pack.
>Except if you look at that one-shot shotgun thing (forgot its name) from
>the NAGRL. Nice weapon, can drop someone straight away if you use it
>well.
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ Gurth + In this bright future +
>+ (jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl) + You can't forget your past +
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---------- End of Original Message ----------
Yea, but give me my mini-PANTHER AC, and my Minigun, along with a room-sweeper
anyday, oh and don't forget the dual custom harness for my "little" toys....
Now the first two will take out MULTIPLE targets, and the sweeper ain't to
shabby either; However the downfall of the mini is that in reality there is
very little recoil (besides backwards) to affect your aim, and you can chew a
hole in a vietnam era tank in 1 minute!!!
Later chummers

"Oh the pain the agony; well one final down, two to go!"
-- Mad Hatter

From:	"It's but a flesh wound." <AM77423@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Tue, 17 May 1994 18:44:34 -0500

Message no. 11 >On Tue, 17 May 1994, Gurth wrote:
>
>> >Spotted a strange thing about SR guns in general...
>> >The smaller it is,the smaller ammo it loads...
>>
>> That appears to be FASA's idea of weapons: the smaller, the less punch
>> they pack.
>> Except if you look at that one-shot shotgun thing (forgot its name) from
>> the NAGRL. Nice weapon, can drop someone straight away if you use it
>> well.
>
> Funny, the real world's like that too. In general, the smaller
>the gun, the lass ammo it holds, and the lower powered it is. Maybe
>because larger power requires larger cartridges, and larger guns, and
>longer barrels? Could that be it?
> Course, a very small gun with one or two big cartridges will
>work. That's why I give the Walther Palm Pistol 8M (It fores a 9M round
>but it has a short barrel (very short) so the Force is down One).
> The Walther PB-120 from FOF has a concealment of 8 with a 10
>round magazine and does 6L. This is about right for a Walther PPK (.380,
>7+1 rounds, a bit bigger than hand sized).
> Ivy K

---------- End of Original Message ----------

Ehh you want anti personal, last ditch weapons?? How about one of my nice
custom hats lined with c12, and a few delay/deadman fuses???
As for firepower in "handguns" try a (oh crap can't remember the name;and I
don't have my StSAm. Cat w/me) well the 50cal, that'l take a trolls head off at
200 yards or less and it's pretty concelable!!

"Oh the pain the agony; well one final down, two to go!"
-- Mad Hatter

From:	Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 18 May 1994 09:11:09 +0200

Message no. 12 > Funny, the real world's like that too. In general, the smaller
>the gun, the lass ammo it holds, and the lower powered it is. Maybe
>because larger power requires larger cartridges, and larger guns, and
>longer barrels? Could that be it?

Yes, but this was concerning hold-outs with only one or two rounds in the
magazine (one in each barrel). In that case, you can put a 40mm grenade
in a 10mm barrel and shoot away (well, maybe not quite...) BTW, you don't
really need longer barrels: all they give is longer range (and the chance
for your powder to burn up before it leaves the barrel). Read somewhere
that, to get the most out of 7.62mm NATO ammo, you'd need a barrel length
of 6 meters (about ten times longer than most assault rifle barrels).

> The Walther PB-120 from FOF has a concealment of 8 with a 10
>round magazine and does 6L. This is about right for a Walther PPK
>(.380, 7+1 rounds, a bit bigger than hand sized).

Now we can introduce James Bond in SR!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Gurth + I'm buried up to my neck in +
+ (jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl) + contradictionary flies +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From:	Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 18 May 1994 07:48:54 CDT

Message no. 13 I could be mistaken, but a longer (albeit rifled) barrell will also give
greater accuracy. Silencers are a differenct story...
-Blade

From:	The Mad Hatter <AM77423@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 18 May 1994 14:40:53 -0500

Message no. 14 >I could be mistaken, but a longer (albeit rifled) barrell will also give
>greater accuracy. Silencers are a differenct story...
>-Blade

---------- End of Original Message ----------

Yea longer rifled barrrels to give greater accuracy; silencers don't do much
for accuracy, it just quiets the sound of the propelent of the bullet(s).
-- Mad Hatter

From:	Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 18 May 1994 17:24:51 CDT

Message no. 15 In fact, silencers (in quieting the sound from the explosion generated gases)
slow the bullet down. That affects both accuracy and damage. The bullet will
tend to impact and stay in the target rather than punching through.
-Blade

From:	Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 10:10:21 +0200

Message no. 16 >I could be mistaken, but a longer (albeit rifled) barrell will also give
>greater accuracy. Silencers are a differenct story...

True. But you don't need a longer barrel for greater accuracy: make it
stronger, less likely to warp. Take the M16A2 as an example: the barrel
is noticably thicker (on the outside) and heavier than that of the M16A1,
and it gives better accuracy. But, this could be due to the different
ammo. Hey, couldwe adopt this into SR? Custom weapons (like someone
mentioned earlier), with heavier barrels to give better accuracy?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Gurth + "Ik kom u vrede en geluk brengen." +
+ (jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl) + "MOOI! ZET MAAR IN DE GANG NEER!" +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From:	"C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 10:42:42 -0400

Message no. 17 On Thu, 19 May 1994, Gurth wrote:

> >I could be mistaken, but a longer (albeit rifled) barrell will also give
> >greater accuracy. Silencers are a differenct story...
>
> True. But you don't need a longer barrel for greater accuracy: make it
> stronger, less likely to warp.

Sorry dude...a heavier barrel has 0 to do with accuracy..It has a whole
lot more to do with durability, and encumberance....A heavier barrel
whould allow you to fire more consecutive rounds before the barrel melted
down....The length of the barrel however has a proportional retationship
with the accuracy of the weapon....longer barrel more accurate flight of
bullet - shorter barrel less accurate flight of bullet..
--------------------------GRANITE

From:	Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 10:19:23 CDT

Message no. 18 In my mind, barrels should be rifled to impart a spin to the bullet. The
rotational inertia keeps the bullet on track. For a worst case example
of what a bullet will do without a rifled barrel, think of a knuckleball.

It is true that a thicker, _stiffer_ barrel will significantly improve your
accuracy. For true SR revelancy, what possible materials could you use
for a high tech weapon? Composites or ceramics could allow for a much
lighter weapon. However, both tend to be brittle, i.e. without significant
advances, I'm not sure how many shots you could get out of ceramic weapon.
(Yeah, I know about the Glock 7, but I hear it's not a very reliable weapon).

I'm thinking of something along the lines of the weapon made in 'In the Line
of Fire'. A "ceramic" weapon was made. It was concealable and modular. Looked
to be about a .45. Currently, that weapon is not possible. But what about
the future.

Think of it... A lightweight, modular, _concealable_ holdout. Why, I've got
the barrel, who's got the trigger mechanism?

-Blade

From:	Tyger09@***.COM
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 15:08:37 EDT

Message no. 19 >In fact, silencers (in quieting the sound from the explosion generated
gases)
>slow the bullet down. That affects both accuracy and damage. The bullet
will
>tend to impact and stay in the target rather than punching through.
>-Blade

Ok, don't flame me too hard. My forte in guns is in the paintball variety.

With my paintgun the 'sound suppressor' (Ok, so it's PC...) I used made it
more accurate at range. 'natch it's harder than hell to find another one
now...

-Tyger

******************************************************************
! |\ /| ! Tyger (Available on "Tyger09@***.com", and a !
! (I)_(I) ! few other locations as well.) !
! --- \ / --- ! Paintball, Pinball, and driving around the state !
! --- | --- ! of confusion without a licence. !
! \___/ \___/ !***************************************************
! "Never say 'Bite me!' to a carnivore." -Catt !
******************************************************************

From:	Lars M Ericson <lericson@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 21:47:42 +0200

Message no. 20 <prior quoted stuff deleted>

> Ok, don't flame me too hard. My forte in guns is in the paintball variety.
>
> With my paintgun the 'sound suppressor' (Ok, so it's PC...) I used made it
> more accurate at range. 'natch it's harder than hell to find another one
> now...
>
> -Tyger

The reason that the paintball is more accurate with a silencer is that
when the silencer is put on the end of the barrel, it effectively makes
the barrel long, imparting more spin on the round.

-- Lars

From:	Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 16:25:35 CDT

Message no. 21 My comments were in no way intended as a flame... Sorry if I offended.

Out of curiousity, how did the sound suppressor for your paint gun work?
The few times I've had need to use a silencer in SR, I was always assessed
pretty severe penalties with respect to accuracy... But if I could make some
modifications...
-Blade

From:	Tyger09@***.COM
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 21:05:11 EDT

Message no. 22 >My comments were in no way intended as a flame... Sorry if I offended.

No sweat.

>Out of curiousity, how did the sound suppressor for your paint gun work?

The inner 'baffle' is molded PVC, with large-cut holes in it. The outer
sleeve is another piece of PVC plastic. Between the two is a foam tube that
absorbs the low-frequency 'bark' of the paintgun. There's also two large
O-rings to hold it in place and keep sound in.

Oh yeah, don't try this at home, kids. Silencers are, after all, illegal.
But... if you have 'net access you can hop onto rec.sport.paintball and ask
there. There's a lot of ways to make 'suppressors (or, mail me privately and
I'll try to help... :)

>The few times I've had need to use a silencer in SR, I was always assessed
>pretty severe penalties with respect to accuracy... But if I could make some
>modifications...
>-Blade

Like I said, I noticed an accuracy jump upwards in accuracy. Then again,
it's paintball.

-Tyger

******************************************************************
! |\ /| ! Tyger (Available on "Tyger09@***.com", and a !
! (I)_(I) ! few other locations as well.) !
! --- \ / --- ! Paintball, Pinball, and driving around the state !
! --- | --- ! of confusion without a licence. !
! \___/ \___/ !***************************************************
! "Never say 'Bite me!' to a carnivore." -Catt !
******************************************************************

From:	Tyger09@***.COM
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 19 May 1994 21:05:26 EDT

Message no. 23 >The reason that the paintball is more accurate with a silencer is that
>when the silencer is put on the end of the barrel, it effectively makes
>the barrel long, imparting more spin on the round.

...or lack thereof. Anyhow, I know next to nothing about 'real' guns. But I
know that real bullets are more accurate than paintballs (which are round,
light, and traveling at low speeds when compared to a 9mm!) Funny think is
that several paintball places offer a 'muzzle brake' (AKA a flash suppressor)
that dosn't offer ANY accuracy or range! Go figure.

Also, I'd been lead to believe that a 'gun' silencer wasn't good for more
than 30 rounds due to the heat of the bullets. Is this fantasy? (My old
paintball silencer lasted 3 seasons, till I cracked it on a tree.)

Thinking of it, I once posted the question of what would happen if you
dikoted the barrel of a gun. The general concession was something similar to
"it'd be a really expensivce gun that didn't jam and needed almost no
cleaning..." Any takers on the idea?

-Tyger

******************************************************************
! |\ /| ! Tyger (Available on "Tyger09@***.com", and a !
! (I)_(I) ! few other locations as well.) !
! --- \ / --- ! Paintball, Pinball, and driving around the state !
! --- | --- ! of confusion without a licence. !
! \___/ \___/ !***************************************************
! "Never say 'Bite me!' to a carnivore." -Catt !
******************************************************************

From:	"S.K. Khoo" <S.K.Khoo@*********.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Guns - reply
Date:	Fri, 20 May 1994 09:58:13 +0100

Message no. 24 In response to Tyger ...

> Also, I'd been lead to believe that a 'gun' silencer wasn't good for more
> than 30 rounds due to the heat of the bullets. Is this fantasy? (My old
> paintball silencer lasted 3 seasons, till I cracked it on a tree.)

You're right about silencers not lasting long; depending on what kind
of silencer ( made for pistol, smg, etc. ) and its size, a silencer will last
anywhere from five to forty rounds before the interior washers ( can't recall
off hand what they were called ) wear out. Someone once claimed they had
come across a sound supressor that could take more than a hundred but I doubt
it - I certainly haven't come across one that could do a hundred.

My group incorporated the idea into our games several years back but
discarded it as being too cumbersome for the GM to keep track of; what we did
was roll 6 dice and if the total was below the number of shots expended with
the silencer, it was no longer effective. Still, we had some great laughs
playing around with it - it's quite a sight to see a player's horror-stricken
face when he loses count of how many rounds he's fired ! :)

Anyway, our GM in the end just ruled that by 2050, tech had come far
enough to produce a silencer capable of sustaining more than a hundred or so
shots; he basically just rolled dice whenever he felt like it was a good time
for our supressors to make noise. If you want to include such rules in your
game, you should be prepared to do more than a little book-keeping.

Anyone else out there have better ideas on how to make this more
playable; I for one would welcome the need for more care in the use of
silencers - makes the players paranoid and they're not a trigger-happy, too.

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Fri, 20 May 1994 10:51:54 -0400

Message no. 25 >>>>> "Gurth" == Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
writes:

Gurth> True. But you don't need a longer barrel for greater accuracy: make
Gurth> it stronger, less likely to warp.

Generally, an automatic weapon would be designed this way to begin with.
Otherwise, increasing the barrel thickness has no effect on accuracy.

Gurth> Take the M16A2 as an example: the barrel is noticably thicker (on
Gurth> the outside) and heavier than that of the M16A1, and it gives better
Gurth> accuracy. But, this could be due to the different ammo.

It's because the A1 used that weird twist ratio to it's rifling for the
special ammo it fired (it can only properly use ammo made for it). The A2
uses yet another twist ratio that can fire NATO 5.56 or A1 ammunition.

Gurth> Hey, couldwe adopt this into SR? Custom weapons (like someone
Gurth> mentioned earlier), with heavier barrels to give better accuracy?

If you're planning on doing something like this, you should retrofit
existing weapons. Ie, .50 caliber Browning is the most accurate round out
there today, followed by (oddly enough) the .22 LR. But how would you go
about doing this?

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== The only way to deal with temptation is to yield to it. --Oscar Wilde ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\

From:	Chris Yang <cyang@*****.UBC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Fri, 20 May 1994 08:03:30 -0700

Message no. 26 On Thu, 19 May 1994 Tyger09@***.COM wrote:
>
> Like I said, I noticed an accuracy jump upwards in accuracy. Then again,
> it's paintball.
>
When I used to play, we attributed the extra accuracy to the baffles in
the silencer "bleeding" off the gases which tend to rush past the pellet
out of the barrel putting spin on the pellets.
The tendency for reduced velocity with the silencer caused us all to move
to muzzle breaks, besides, I played with a team which used all of the
same gun (Sniper IIs) and we LIKED being loud. =)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yang cyang@*****.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia cyang@******.ubc.ca
Dept of Botany

From:	Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Fri, 20 May 1994 11:30:23 CDT

Message no. 27 I'm not exactly sure what 'dikoted' means, but am guessing it's some kind of
low friction coating (i.e. Teflon) only more durable. Teflon has very little
mechanical strength, and will only stick to itself. But if you were to coat
the bullets, that's another story.

How about this in SR? If I fabbed my own rounds, precoating the shells with
Teflon or some other 'frictionless' coating, what kind of benefit would
you assess with respect to armor penetration? I've um, heard, about someone
testing this and a teflon coated rifle slug could penetrate Kevlar...

-Blade

From:	Slim Goodbody <zcarr@******.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sat, 21 May 1994 07:31:20 -0600

Message no. 28 :) Date: Friday, 20 May 1994 11:30:23 CDT
:) From: Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
:) Subject: Re: Guns - Reply
:)
:) I'm not exactly sure what 'dikoted' means, but am guessing it's some kind of
:) low friction coating (i.e. Teflon) only more durable. Teflon has very little
:) mechanical strength, and will only stick to itself. But if you were to coat
:) the bullets, that's another story.

it's basically a diamond coating (great for retractable razors, spurs,
knives, katanas and anything else sharp and intended to do a lot of
puncture/slashing damage). It's hardly like Teflon, but works on
a completely different principle. Teflon does only stick to itself.
Teflon is very much like the carbon you find in a pencil. It's is
layered in sheet and after a time of usage (very short for a pencil) it
wears off. When this happens the next layer is the "smoothness" of the
Teflon and it soon TOO will wear off. A pencil is basically flaking the
graphite away and onto the paper. The Teflon's flaking action is in
essence, the REASON it is slick. This is what gives it the characteristic
of being smooth/"non-sticking".

Dikote on the other hand is basically like a sheet of diamonds...sorta....not
really. (I don't have ShadowTech in front of me). Diamonds are supposedly
the strongest thing in the universe. (yeah right) This is due to their
construction as well. While being made up of carbon (as is graphite), the
strength that they possess is derived through it's crystalline structure.
The carbon bonds in a way that is not layered. All points are connected
equally with one another and do not "want" to let go for anything. It is
possible to break diamonds. (that's what diamond cutters DO) The key
point though is that diamonds are strong, not necessarily smooth. The purpose
of Dikote-ing a knife is to make it cut better. This is not because it is
smoother...it's because it is sharper. (not to mention stronger).
Dikote-ing a gun is dandy, but the only thing you are REALLY doing is
making a gun that will probably jam sooner, and, (if you don't protect
the weapon), a shiny piece of metal to draw attention (read as GUNFIRE)
to yourself with.

:) How about this in SR? If I fabbed my own rounds, precoating the shells with
:) Teflon or some other 'frictionless' coating, what kind of benefit would
:) you assess with respect to armor penetration? I've um, heard, about someone
:) testing this and a teflon coated rifle slug could penetrate Kevlar...

Teflon bullets DO exist. They are called "cop-killers", and will rip Kevlar
vests to shreds. This is the reason that they are illegal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Prophet of Puyallup-(ask not for the answers, but how much they'll cost ya.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
/ / / / They had been corrupted by money, and he had been corrupted by |
| | | | sentiment. Sentiment was the more dangerous, because you couldn't |
\ \ \ \ name its price. A man open to bribes was to be relied upon below |
\ \ \ \ a certain figure, but sentiment might uncoil in the heart at |
| | | | a name, a photograph, even a smell remembered. -Graham Greene |
\ \ \ \_______________________________________________________________|
\__\__\__/

From:	Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sat, 21 May 1994 06:22:29 -0700

Message no. 29 On Fri, 20 May 1994, Jeff Norrell wrote:

> I'm not exactly sure what 'dikoted' means, but am guessing it's some kind of
> low friction coating (i.e. Teflon) only more durable. Teflon has very little
> mechanical strength, and will only stick to itself. But if you were to coat
> the bullets, that's another story.
>
> How about this in SR? If I fabbed my own rounds, precoating the shells with
> Teflon or some other 'frictionless' coating, what kind of benefit would
> you assess with respect to armor penetration? I've um, heard, about someone
> testing this and a teflon coated rifle slug could penetrate Kevlar...
>
> -Blade
>
Dikoting is covered in ShadowTech. Teflon bullets can't be
home-made but they *will* penetrate Kevlar.
Ivy K

From:	"C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sat, 21 May 1994 09:41:02 -0400

Message no. 30 > How about this in SR? If I fabbed my own rounds, precoating the shells with
> Teflon or some other 'frictionless' coating, what kind of benefit would
> you assess with respect to armor penetration? I've um, heard, about someone
> testing this and a teflon coated rifle slug could penetrate Kevlar...

What you would end up with would be APDS rounds....Even using DIOKOTE tm
the same basic end product is reached except it is a hell of a lot more
expensive....for those without Shadowtech DIOKOTE tm is a process that
places an actual diamond coating on certain gear items...
------------------------GRANITE

From:	Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sat, 21 May 1994 08:56:34 -0500

Message no. 31 APDS ammunition for, say, a 9mm, is basically a 7mm shell with a space-filling
sabot around it, right? So why not Teflon-coat the 7mm shell...

Gods, that would be nasty.

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sat, 21 May 1994 21:51:34 -0400

Message no. 32 >>>>> "Gian-Paolo" == Gian-Paolo Musumeci
<musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

Gian-Paolo> APDS ammunition for, say, a 9mm, is basically a 7mm shell with
Gian-Paolo> a space-filling sabot around it, right?

More like a 2mm to 3mm penetrator.

Gian-Paolo> So why not Teflon-coat the 7mm shell...

Because teflon actually /reduces/ penetration against ballistic fabrics and
degrades accuracy. The mythical "cop killer" Teflon rounds are a myth; the
only reason to coat slugs with Teflon is to reduce barrel wear by reducing
friction (which means less spin on the round, BTW, and thus reduced ranged
and accuracy).

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== I came. I saw. I did what I had to do, and got the hell out! --a button ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\

From:	Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sat, 21 May 1994 21:47:49 -0500

Message no. 33 Why should Teflon reduce penetration? There's less friction, and thus less
slowdown.

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sun, 22 May 1994 19:24:36 -0400

Message no. 34 >>>>> "Gian-Paolo" == Gian-Paolo Musumeci
<musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

Gian-Paolo> Why should Teflon reduce penetration? There's less friction,
Gian-Paolo> and thus less slowdown.

Less friction on the barrel, yes, enough to reduce wear by a bit. But by
the time the round has cleared the barrel, a lot of the Teflon has been
scraped away by the rifling. Then, as far as ballistic fabrics go, there's
actually /more/ friction from the rough edges where some of the Teflon has
been scraped away, thus the weave can get a better grip on the round and
distribute more energy away from the point of impact.

As I said, the so-called "Teflon Cop Killer" rounds are an urban myth, most
likely propogated by the media. If you want to punch through ballistic
fabrics, use FMJ rifle rounds.

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips ==
== over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.--Nietzsche ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\

Message no. 35 FMJ? Explain

From:	Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Sun, 22 May 1994 18:42:53 -0500

From:	"S.K. Khoo" <S.K.Khoo@*********.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Mon, 23 May 1994 09:56:48 +0100

Message no. 36 On Sun, 22 May 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:

> FMJ? Explain

Full metal jacket, G-P.

Message no. 37 Ah. AKA Big Nasty.

From:	Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Mon, 23 May 1994 13:22:58 -0500

From:	Chris Yang <cyang@*****.UBC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Mon, 23 May 1994 16:10:52 -0700

Message no. 38 On Sat, 21 May 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> >
> Dikoting is covered in ShadowTech. Teflon bullets can't be
> home-made but they *will* penetrate Kevlar.
>
It's my understanding that there are no such things as teflon bullets.
The teflon coated bullets which penetrate armor are actually steel
bullets with the teflon coating there merely to prevent the bullet from
destroying the rifling of the barrel as the bullet comes out.
The teflon has no effect on the steel bullet penetrating the armor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yang cyang@*****.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia cyang@******.ubc.ca
Dept of Botany

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Mon, 23 May 1994 19:19:30 -0400

Message no. 39 >>>>> "Gian-Paolo" == Gian-Paolo Musumeci
<musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

Gian-Paolo> Ah. AKA Big Nasty.

Not really. FMJ, full metal jacket, is the current standard military issue
round.

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== Peanut butter isn't a food group, it's a bio-degradable adhesive. ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\

Message no. 40 It beats straight-lead .22 rounds. ;-)

From:	Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Mon, 23 May 1994 18:45:53 -0500

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Tue, 24 May 1994 09:14:48 -0400

Message no. 41 >>>>> "Gian-Paolo" == Gian-Paolo Musumeci
<musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

Gian-Paolo> It beats straight-lead .22 rounds. ;-)

Which are, in almost all cases, partial copper jacketed. There are very few
unjacketed rounds out there today, for a variety of reasons from Geneva
Conventions to ruining the meat you're hunting.

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== An it harm none, 'do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the Law. ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\

From:	Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Tue, 24 May 1994 10:43:38 -0700

Message no. 42 On Mon, 23 May 1994, Chris Yang wrote:

> On Sat, 21 May 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> > >
> > Dikoting is covered in ShadowTech. Teflon bullets can't be
> > home-made but they *will* penetrate Kevlar.
> >
> It's my understanding that there are no such things as teflon bullets.
> The teflon coated bullets which penetrate armor are actually steel
> bullets with the teflon coating there merely to prevent the bullet from
> destroying the rifling of the barrel as the bullet comes out.
> The teflon has no effect on the steel bullet penetrating the armor.
> Chris Yang cyang@*****.ubc.ca

Thanks Chris,
I hadn't noticed that part before. Steel with teflon to protect the
barrel, and of course, the steel part was ignored by the media. Even the
NRA didn't mention the steel bullet part. Probably afraid some would
build their own. ;)
Ivy K

From:	Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Tue, 24 May 1994 14:05:17 -0500

Message no. 43 Okay, here's a question for you.

In White Wolf Games' "Vampire" there is an extensive gun table. Would people
like to see a translated version of this?

From:	Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 25 May 1994 09:49:13 -0400

Message no. 44 >>>>> "Gian-Paolo" == Gian-Paolo Musumeci
<musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

Gian-Paolo> In White Wolf Games' "Vampire" there is an extensive gun table.
Gian-Paolo> Would people like to see a translated version of this?

You mean that /totally/ useless piece of dreck?! Forget it. I'd much rather
see some conversions for the Compendium of Modern Firearms or 3G^3.

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== Peanut butter isn't a food group, it's a bio-degradable adhesive. ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\

From:	Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 25 May 1994 18:33:55 +0200

Message no. 45 >In White Wolf Games' "Vampire" there is an extensive gun table. Would
>people like to see a translated version of this?

I'm always in for new goodies.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Gurth + In this bright future +
+ (jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl) + You can't forget your past +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From:	jacob hawkins <HAWKINSJ@********.WA.COM>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 25 May 1994 21:04:26 +0200

Message no. 46 A while back someone posted the prices for dikoting bullets. I
showed one of my pals and he presented me with a problem with that.
During the process, wouldn't the bullet's propellant burn off?

I figure you could dikote the bullets before you put them in the
cartridges but that would probably cost more for hand pressed bullets.

Snakebait
______________________________________________________________________
"Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife | Doctor Emilio Lizardo
Doomed is your soul and damned is your life!"| a.k.a Lord John
| Whorphin

From:	Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Wed, 25 May 1994 12:16:58 -0700

Message no. 47 On Wed, 25 May 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Gian-Paolo" == Gian-Paolo Musumeci
<musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
> >>>>> writes:
>
> Gian-Paolo> In White Wolf Games' "Vampire" there is an extensive gun
table.
> Gian-Paolo> Would people like to see a translated version of this?
>
> You mean that /totally/ useless piece of dreck?! Forget it. I'd much rather
> see some conversions for the Compendium of Modern Firearms or 3G^3.
>
> == Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==

I have one, but I'm holding out for my print date for my own game. Sorry.

Ivy K

From:	Gurth <jweste%smtp@******.HZEELAND.NL>
Subject:	Re: Guns - Reply
Date:	Thu, 26 May 1994 10:10:27 +0200

Message no. 48 >You mean that /totally/ useless piece of dreck?! Forget it. I'd much
>rather see some conversions for the Compendium of Modern Firearms or
>3G^3.

That'd be interesting too. I've been thinking about buying either one of
those two and converting stats to SR (3G^3 doesn't include an
SR-conversion system, does it?), but I think it'd be a hell of a lot of
work.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Gurth + pass the lord and praise the ammo +
+(jweste%smtp@******.hzeeland.nl)+ +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From:	Quicksilver <jhurley1@****.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject:	Guns
Date:	Fri, 10 Mar 1995 17:48:03 -30000

Message no. 49 Something I forgot to mention in my last post.

Weapon speeds:

This is something I came up with after a bit of thought. Ever wonder why
SpecOps uses SMGs in this age of Assault Rifles? They do it becuase the
SMG is more rapidly maneuverable, and easier to handle in close quarters.

To account for this, I instituted something called a "speed factor" This
is a number that is used as an initiative penalty, as a close-combat
penalty, and, when in close quarters, a penalty to firearms. It goes as
follows:

Hold-outs: -1 (for close combat only, initiative as light pistol)
Light Pistols: 0
Heavy Pistols:1
SMGs: 2
Assault Rifles & combat shotguns:3
Sporting/Sniping Rifles, LMG:4
M&HMGs, Assault Cannons, etc.:5

melee weapons have an initiative and close quarters penalty equal to
their reach. Bows have a penalty of 3, crossbows have a penalty of 2 or
three, depending on size. Gyro-mounts have a large (undefined yet,
no-one has used them) penalty.

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

From:	Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Guns
Date:	Sat, 11 Mar 1995 16:06:15 +1000

Message no. 50 Quicksilver writes:

> To account for this, I instituted something called a "speed factor" This
> is a number that is used as an initiative penalty, as a close-combat
> penalty, and, when in close quarters, a penalty to firearms. It goes as
> follows:
>
> Hold-outs: -1 (for close combat only, initiative as light pistol)
> Light Pistols: 0
> Heavy Pistols:1
> SMGs: 2
> Assault Rifles & combat shotguns:3
> Sporting/Sniping Rifles, LMG:4
> M&HMGs, Assault Cannons, etc.:5

So if I use an SMG I get -2 to my intitiative rolls? And +2 if I try to fire
it when being attacked in melee? (I assume this replaces the +2 per opponent
for all firearms attacks from a melee in the book? Or is it in addition?).
What do you define as "close quarters" for the firearms penalty?

> melee weapons have an initiative and close quarters penalty equal to
> their reach.

So you would give a guy using a halberd (sp?) in "close quarters" (which
needs a tad of defining) a -2 to his skill? That sounds reasonable enough,
since those who are skilled with a long melee weapon can still use them
effectively at very close distances (someone on here told us of some guy who
could use some polearm on you very effectively, even if you were right up
next to him).

> Bows have a penalty of 3

This is an initiative and close combat and "close quarters" penalty? ie, if
using a bow I get -3 to intiative, +3 to my target numbers if being engaged
in melee combat (in addition, or as a replacement of the books modifier?),
and -3 skill dice if usuing it in "close quarters"?

> Gyro-mounts have a large (undefined yet, no-one has used them) penalty.

I think the rating of the gyro mount would be a good number to use.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Message no. 51 On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Quicksilver writes:
[snip. If you want the table again, private e-mail me]
>
> So if I use an SMG I get -2 to my intitiative rolls? And +2 if I try to fire
> it when being attacked in melee? (I assume this replaces the +2 per opponent
> for all firearms attacks from a melee in the book? Or is it in addition?).
> What do you define as "close quarters" for the firearms penalty?

Yes, it replaces that penalty. And in all cases, you get a -2 to your
rolled initiative. (You still go every 10 phases). The last time I
called "close quarters" was in a 1.5 meter sewer. GM's call, I'm afraid.
Close quarters penalties apply to both ranged and melee attacks.

>
> > melee weapons have an initiative and close quarters penalty equal to
> > their reach.
>
> So you would give a guy using a halberd (sp?) in "close quarters" (which
> needs a tad of defining) a -2 to his skill? That sounds reasonable enough,
> since those who are skilled with a long melee weapon can still use them
> effectively at very close distances (someone on here told us of some guy who
> could use some polearm on you very effectively, even if you were right up
> next to him).

Sorry I wasn't clear, +2 to their target number in "close quarters"
fighting (and no reach, either. Use a knife when fighting in the closet,
chummer, even if you are a troll. In really close quarters, reach might
even hinder. GM's call.)

>
> > Bows have a penalty of 3
>
> This is an initiative and close combat and "close quarters" penalty? ie, if
> using a bow I get -3 to intiative, +3 to my target numbers if being engaged
> in melee combat (in addition, or as a replacement of the books modifier?),
> and -3 skill dice if usuing it in "close quarters"?

Again, close quarters is a TN penalty(+3 to target number), and these
penalties replace firearms in melee combat penalties

>
> > Gyro-mounts have a large (undefined yet, no-one has used them) penalty.
>
> I think the rating of the gyro mount would be a good number to use.
>

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

Message no. 52 Quicksilver writes:

[Clarifications on his weapon speed rules]

OK, so the weapon speed of a firearm will:
1) Subtract from your initiative
2) Add to your target number if your are firing while someone is
conducting a melee attack on you
3) Subtract from your firearms skill if you are firing in close
quarters

While the weapon sped of a melee weapon will:
1) Subtract from your initiative
2) Add to your target number if you are fighting in close quarters
(and you don't get your reach modifier)

And, the weapon speed of a bow or crossbow will:
1) Subtract from your initiative
2) Add to your target number if you are firing while someone is
conducting a melee attack on you
3) Add to your target number if you are firing in close quarters

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Message no. 53 On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Quicksilver writes:
>
> [Clarifications on his weapon speed rules]
>
> OK, so the weapon speed of a firearm will:
> 1) Subtract from your initiative
> 2) Add to your target number if your are firing while someone is
> conducting a melee attack on you
> 3) Subtract from your firearms skill if you are firing in close
> quarters

No. It twill add to the target number if firing in close quarters

>
> While the weapon sped of a melee weapon will:
> 1) Subtract from your initiative
> 2) Add to your target number if you are fighting in close quarters
> (and you don't get your reach modifier)

Yep.

>
> And, the weapon speed of a bow or crossbow will:
> 1) Subtract from your initiative
> 2) Add to your target number if you are firing while someone is
> conducting a melee attack on you
> 3) Add to your target number if you are firing in close quarters

Yep.

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

Message no. 54 Are we going to define close quaters or did I miss the definition?

On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Quicksilver writes:
>
> [Clarifications on his weapon speed rules]
>
> OK, so the weapon speed of a firearm will:
> 1) Subtract from your initiative
> 2) Add to your target number if your are firing while someone is
> conducting a melee attack on you
> 3) Subtract from your firearms skill if you are firing in close
> quarters
>
> While the weapon sped of a melee weapon will:
> 1) Subtract from your initiative
> 2) Add to your target number if you are fighting in close quarters
> (and you don't get your reach modifier)
>
> And, the weapon speed of a bow or crossbow will:
> 1) Subtract from your initiative
> 2) Add to your target number if you are firing while someone is
> conducting a melee attack on you
> 3) Add to your target number if you are firing in close quarters
>
> --
> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
>
> (GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
> E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
> b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
>

Message no. 55 Michael Eames writes:

> Are we going to define close quaters or did I miss the definition?

Well, we sorta vaguely defined it. More or less a GM call. But think of
situations in which it would be appropriate, like in narrow corridoors only
1-1.5m wide, low ceiling'd places - like a drainage tunnel, small rooms,
like a toilet or closet, even mass combats where many people are crammed
into next to each other, situations like when your back's to the wall and
there is a troll trying to deck you (you'd be getting both the melee combat
and close quarters one there). Just think of when it would be hard to use an
unwieldy weapon.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Message no. 56 On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Michael Eames writes:
>
> > Are we going to define close quaters or did I miss the definition?
>
> Well, we sorta vaguely defined it. More or less a GM call. But think of
> situations in which it would be appropriate, like in narrow corridoors only
> 1-1.5m wide, low ceiling'd places - like a drainage tunnel, small rooms,
> like a toilet or closet, even mass combats where many people are crammed
> into next to each other, situations like when your back's to the wall and
> there is a troll trying to deck you (you'd be getting both the melee combat
> and close quarters one there). Just think of when it would be hard to use an
> unwieldy weapon.

I got an easier version they taught us in Korea. CQB or Close Quarters Battle
occurs when the target and the targetee are close enough where neither
wants nor has time, nor could have planed to make the time to draw,
track, aim and fire at each other. Must be using a pistol, smg, or
shotgun and a forearm smash to the targets/targetees face is required.

Man I hate it when I do stuff like this, corrupting you alls mind in such
a way that our...er the US government saves for its special children.

Edge

Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr Ahee Curr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this Doc, she asks me if I am thinking homicidal thoughts. Isn't a
93.7 body count enough of an indicator?

Paramedic Exam: You will be given a left leg presenting with an amputated
casualty. Control haemmorrhage and treat for complications. After 5
minutes the casualty will go into v-fib. The leg is pregnant. You have
a toothpick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Peterson (Paul Finch) Edge | US Army Ret. 1/506th Inf (Mtr. Lt.)
EMT-Paramedic/BSN Wanna-be and Will-Be! Self Empowered Gun Nut
Really Pissed Off Ex-Marriot Fast Food Employee seeking Revenge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone Stands Alone

Message no. 57 On Sun, 12 Mar 1995, Michael Eames wrote:

> Are we going to define close quaters or did I miss the definition?
>
[table snipped, see old logs]

Um, no. It's a GM call. I'm not going to give a hard and fast rule.
Certainly, if for some fragged up reason, the character is in a firefight
or melee combat in a closet, he's in "close quarters." OTOH, an open
field is NOT close quarters. In general, anytime the character does not
have enough room around him to stretch his arms out to their fullest
extent in all directions, that is when the GM should be looking at
close-quarters penalties.

Chavez:"I want to see his eyes when it happens."
Clark:"So use a good scope on the rifle."

Message no. 58 In shadowrun, we deal alot with guns...they're everywhere...but I was
wondering a couple of things...

1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
guns. (although I think it is just media...) What does everyone on the
list think?

2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.

3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?

I really wanted to know most about the first question. I am for the average
citizen owning firearms, and I was wondering how the average person in this
country, and other countries felt about them. If you want to talk to me about
my stand on guns, feel free to personally mail me but please do not spam the
list with politics.

>>>>>>>> Nate
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| NTWalker@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US |
| a.k.a. The Joker |
| |
| Where does he get those marvelous toys? |
| - Joker |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:- a--->? C++++ U->++++ P+>++++ L>++ E--- W+ N? o? K? w--- O? M--
V++>- PS PE Y+ PGP? t+++(-) 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI? D++ G++ e>++ h!>++ !r y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 59 On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Nathan Walker wrote:

> 1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
> we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
> guns. (although I think it is just media...) What does everyone on the
> list think?
>
> 2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
> probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
> etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
> by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.
>
> 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
> then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?
>

Okay, as to point one, I don't really know much about US gun control
laws, but I know Australian laws, which vary from state to state, are
very restrictive (if that's the word to use). In Victoria where I live
you need a licence to own a rifle or shotgun (easy to get if you've got
the slightest reason), but automatic and semi-automatic weapons are
illegal unless you can get a special permit, say as a collector. For
pistols you have to get a separate licence which includes giving finger
prints. These are some of the toughest laws in Australia. I think that
they are justifiable given the propensity for misuse (i.e. shooting
rampages, suicides etc.) which seem to occur way too frequently.

On the second point, as far as my SRII games have been concerned, I've
taken the view that almost everyone owns a gun, but most keep them for
personal defense in the house, but that in rougher neighbourhoods
carrying a gun is expected and the cops don't bother you if it's a light
pistol or such because it isn't worth their while (unless the just feel
like it, of course). Carrying much more than a heavy pistol is, in my
games, downright dangerous to the bearer due to unwanted attention, so my
players buy the heavy stuff and leave it at home, 'cept the stupid ones.

On the third point I think it would be in the corps. best interest to
train all the good little wageslaves to shoot straight, so's all could
partcipate in the shoot-the-intruder fun and games that accompany an
extraction etc. Of course, most corps. won't be giving their employees
weapons for day to day use. Some corps. would be even more gungho, like
Aztechnology (where the guards have mil spec. armour and assault rifles,
and the civies can pop their little pistols and SMG.s all they want.

I agree they corps. would want tight gun control laws, because they don't
have to obey them, because they've got extraterritoriality and make their
own gun laws for their property, so by pushing control for the nations
they operate in they don't hamper themselves at all.

Phew.

This is a good point, and I've had problems with it in the past.
Forunately the SRII gun combat lethality is such that my players are
happy if they can carry a well-concealed PredatorII, because the
oppostion won't often have much more, and PC's don't die quite so often
(unless they're like ol' Cerebus, who found out the hard way that it's to
no avail to take down three of four Lone Stars with SMG's with his Colt,
only to find that standing in the middle of an allyway when the fourth
strokes out the autoshotgun is *real* counterproductive to ones continued
respiratory well-being[them's dumb PC's, they is])

Thanks for letting me rave on like this, Horus.

Message no. 60 On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Nathan Walker wrote:

> In shadowrun, we deal alot with guns...they're everywhere...but I was
> wondering a couple of things...
>
> 1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
> we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
> guns. (although I think it is just media...) What does everyone on the
> list think?

personally, I think that guns should not be freely available. there are
enough of them out there already, a gun under the pillow can be stolen,
guns get found by children etc etc.
no new arguments, I'm afraid

> 2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
> probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
> etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
> by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.

probably like today, but more extreme. Some will have an arsenal under
their bed, ready to defend themselves from each other, some will refuse
to buy their children toy guns and picket gun shops (not too loudly, of
course, no sense in irritating big corp's with big sec guards with big guns)

> 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
> then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?

They would probably lobby for really expensive gun licenses, so that they
can afford to arm themselves, but the average citizen won't present
any danger to their assets

>
> I really wanted to know most about the first question. I am for the average
> citizen owning firearms, and I was wondering how the average person in this
> country, and other countries felt about them. If you want to talk to me about
> my stand on guns, feel free to personally mail me but please do not spam the
> list with politics.

Hey, each to his own, right? besides, I hate arguing about political
stands :-)

> >>>>>>>> Nate
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> | NTWalker@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US |
> | a.k.a. The Joker |
> | |
> | Where does he get those marvelous toys? |
> | - Joker |
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GCS d- s:- a--->? C++++ U->++++ P+>++++ L>++ E--- W+ N? o? K? w--- O? M--
> V++>- PS PE Y+ PGP? t+++(-) 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI? D++ G++ e>++ h!>++ !r y?
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
_____________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
- Clarke
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"
- Murphy
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
demo" - Old Programmer Saying
"Any technology distinguisgable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
- Unknown
____________________________________________
mail: aversfel@****.cs.unp.ac.za
homepage: http://mars.cs.unp.ac.za/users/aversfel
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK_____
version 3.1
GCS(S) d- s: a--- C++>$ UL P L++@ E? W>++ N+++(+)>++ o-- K-? w (+)(--)
O? M! V? PS PE- Y+ PGP- t+ 5? X(+) R(++) tv>--- b++(+++) DI? D++ G(+)
e(++)>* h! !r y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 61 }In shadowrun, we deal alot with guns...they're everywhere...but I was
}wondering a couple of things...

Except when you need to purchase them :-)

}1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
}we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
}guns. (although I think it is just media...) What does everyone on the
}list think?

On the side of destroying all guns a) No more long range attacks
b) Possibilty lower crimerates
c) Better chance of survival
On the down side a) Joe Bloggs in crime ridden area feels
security comprimised
b) Illegal gun production will proliferate
c) I personally would prefer to die by a single
shot to the head compared to several minutes
bleeding to death from knifewounds

}2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
}probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
}etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
}by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.

Agreed. Inividual personality, depends on how secure the
individual feels.

}3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
}then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?

Shooting a gun toting individual is more media acceptable than
gunning down an individual weilding a 6 inch knife.

Andre'

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|It has been said that the they who stay in the shadows have|
|no soul, no depth, no moral conviction. But how can one |
|say this when, it is they who have lost themselves in the |
|search utopia. We are the realists, we work from the |
|unseen corners of society, we do what no another has the |
|strength to do, with our cybered bodies and magic extreme |
|we prevent the corruption from spreading and destroying |
|your dreams, not through power, but bullets, sweat, tears |
|and blood. All of this we do for your sake, and few nuyen. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+

-
|_|_
/ \ \ /~\/~~~~
| | | - \_/ + THUMP...Thump..thump = Boom ?
| | |
\___/

Message no. 62 Nathan Walker said on 16 Oct 95...

> 1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
> we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
> guns. (although I think it is just media...) What does everyone on the
> list think?

Watch out, before you know this degenerates into a "Xth amendment of the
US constitution sucks" debate. (Quite probably due to the likes of me
saying that...) Last time we had this, it boiled down to most Americans
saying the US constitution was perfect, and most non-Americans saying it
was crap incarnate.
Me personally, I think gun control laws work (look at the violent crime
rate over here), but I also think the Dutch laws are a little _too_ tight.
You can't even own a non-firing, completely static replica of a gun
without a license...

> 2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
> probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
> etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
> by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.

Good question. I don't think I'm in a position to answer this, though...

> 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
> then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?

Corps don't care shit about gun laws in the UCAS or anywhere else. They
make their own, which usually means that it is highly illegal to carry
firearms on the corp's property unless you belong to the corp's own
security force, in wich case you may carry both a Panther cannon and a
minigun at the same time, with a grenade launcher as back-up underneath
both of them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Rapacity, tenacity, capacity for more
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(--) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 63 Nathan Walker wrote:
> 1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
> we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
> guns. (although I think it is just media...)

NOT!!!!

> What does everyone on the
> list think?

However this is my very own opinion and is not meant as a flame :)

> 2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
> probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
> etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
> by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.

The average person probably hates guns, but caries a piece nontheless, at least
in Seattle/UCAS he does.

> 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
> then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?

They would loby for strict gun-control laws that would make it "impossible"
for an unaothorised person to get a gun. This would take guns away from the
hands of the petty criminals and rise prises at the same time.

> I really wanted to know most about the first question. I am for the average
> citizen owning firearms, and I was wondering how the average person in this
> country, and other countries felt about them. If you want to talk to me about
> my stand on guns, feel free to personally mail me but please do not spam the
> list with politics.

I dont wish to discuss this, but since you asked I think that access to
guns should be *extremely* restricted. Making guns widely available only puts
them in the hands of petty criminals - namely the people that will actually
use them against John Average. I know that organised crime etc. will always
have access to guns, but I really dont care about organised crime.

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

"In my mind I see the matrix, and in the matrix is held the power. The lock
to the matrix is my will, and in the matrix my will becomes the power."

Message no. 64 > 1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns?
I personally am for it, and I own them. Making laws to take guns away
from criminals doesn't stop crime. Criminals ARE criminals by definition
that they break laws. Hence the old saying, "make guns illegal, and only
criminals will have guns." I also know that if someone is breaking into my
house or coming at me on a street/parkinglot, no cop is gonna get there
in time to protect me. It is my responsibility to protect me.

> 2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
> probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
> etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
> by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.
My opinion is that society shouldn't change that much. NOBODY wants to
be a victim. And, law-abiding citizens will obey the laws as always --
even if that means not having any guns per order of the law. However, I
think given the opportunity to protect oneself, the average citizen in
2050 would own guns.

>
> 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
> then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?
Corps are extraterratorial. The laws of the surrounding lands don't
bother them if I am not mistaken. They may be in favor of gun-control
laws to try and keep external parasites from causing problems, but within
their corp enclaves, I think the laws would vary. They don't want any of
their execs to be kidnapped or assassinated.

Glenn Robertson ___
Microbiologist Extraordinaire /***\
A.K.A. Miniature Livestock Manager |nasty|
|virus|
"My Homework Ate My Dog!" \***/
[-]
/^+++^\ /\
_/ / # \ \/
/ \ \_
| \
/

Message no. 65 > On the side of destroying all guns a) No more long range attacks
> b) Possibilty lower crimerates
> c) Better chance of survival
Maybe true for long range attacks, but NOT true for b) and c). Other
countries have banned guns and the homicide rate didn't decline. The
people that want to kill someone will still do it. I think this occured
in Canada, and statistically the rate didn't change. If the rate of
homicides didn't change, then the survival chances could not have
increased either.

> On the down side a) Joe Bloggs in crime ridden area feels
> security comprimised
> b) Illegal gun production will proliferate
> c) I personally would prefer to die by a single
> shot to the head compared to several minutes
> bleeding to death from knifewounds
>
All valid points, especially if you've ever had the unfortunate instance
of having to deal with a) and having the cops take 30 minutes to respond
to your residence. I have. Don't be a fool and think "it won't happen
to me."

Glenn Robertson ___
Microbiologist Extraordinaire /***\
A.K.A. Miniature Livestock Manager |nasty|
|virus|
"My Homework Ate My Dog!" \***/
[-]
/^+++^\ /\
_/ / # \ \/
/ \ \_
| \
/

Message no. 66 Glenn Robertson wrote:
>>Corps are extraterratorial. The laws of the surrounding lands don't
>bother them if I am not mistaken. They may be in favor of gun-control
>laws to try and keep external parasites from causing problems, but within
>their corp enclaves, I think the laws would vary. They don't want any of
>their execs to be kidnapped or assassinated.

I would think that Corps would have STRICT gun control laws.
My reasoning is that the corps want security to have all the guns. That
makes the security people job easier: 'Hey, that person has a gun. Arrest
them/shoot them'. Also, if a corp had lax weapon control laws, people would
not be so dependent on Corp security (which the corp doesn't want either) or
even start disregarding security (rarely).

Guy Swartwood corporate decker by day, shadowrunner at night
gswartwo@*********.wichitaks.attgis.com
wildman@******.net

Message no. 67 Glenn Robertson wrote:
> >
> > 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
> > then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?
> Corps are extraterratorial. The laws of the surrounding lands don't
> bother them if I am not mistaken. They may be in favor of gun-control
> laws to try and keep external parasites from causing problems, but within
> their corp enclaves, I think the laws would vary. They don't want any of
> their execs to be kidnapped or assassinated.

Corps are extraterritorial, but they don't have the same privileges as
nation-states. The big one that's missing is diplomatic immunity. For
example, if an embassy want's some guns, they shove it into the diplomatic
pouch. If a corp wants guns, they have to ship it in. If that shipment goes
through a jurisdiction where such shipment is illegal, government troops
can seize it.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***

Message no. 68 > In shadowrun, we deal alot with guns...they're everywhere...but I was
> wondering a couple of things...
>
> 1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
> we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
> guns. (although I think it is just media...) What does everyone on the
> list think?

Well, I own a firearm (and several replicas/deactivated weapons). In Britain,
getting my Firearm Certificate took about nine months. We have almost no
crime committed with legally-owned firearms here (illegal weapons are a
big problem... by our standards at least, trivial compared to the US) So
I'm both pro-ownership and pro-control. I could go on, but to little point :)

> 2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
> probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
> etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
> by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.

I personally think a great many people in the 2050s have weapons of some
kind, probably pistols and shotguns, for personal defence. Fewer in the
A and better neighbourhoods - this is what you pay the rentacops for -
and more in the lower areas, where you make your own security.

> 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
> then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?

Corps would want lax gun laws, not tight ones. On their own turf, they write
the laws anyway: outside their jurisdiction, loose gun laws mean more firearm
sales. Lots of guns means more sales of body armour, ammunition, and medical
supplies. They can always assemble more firepower than the enemy.

Also, an armed and rebellious population justifies their draconian security
policies. If there aren't many illegal firearms around, why do you need
guards in milspec with SMGs?

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 69 Let's not discard the issue of sporting rifles, they may not be popular in
Seattle in 2050 because of the barrier between Seattle and hunting areas,
which would probably fall almost exclusively to the NAN, but right now
anyways, they are one of the more popular weapons that would be found in an
average home.

Message no. 70 >On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Nathan Walker wrote:
>
>> 1. How does everyone on this list feel about guns? In this country (USA)
>> we have alot of gun-control laws and alot of media against people owning
>> guns. (although I think it is just media...) What does everyone on the
>> list think?

A gun is a tool, the results of its use depends on the skill and desires
of the workman. In the hands of the mugger it is a horrible sight to behold, in
the hands of a policeman interupting your mugging, it is simply beautiful. Gun
control laws don't work, New York and Washington DC have high murder rates and
the strictest gun control laws in the United States. I have had the good fortune
to live in (then West)Germany and to visit Paris, London, Belgium and Luxemburg
there are major differences between them and the United States (niether good or
bad just differences, like the United States's lack of a uniform cultural,
racial, ethnic, and moral background of its citizens. Because of this much of
what works in other countries may not work in the USA. The political aspects of
gun ownership and the historical precedents such as the use of fire arms to win
our nations independence add to this. To top this all off is a history
self-reliance and the need to provide for our own defence. In the county I
reside there are rural areas with a 4 hour response time for police services (if
it is life or death matter otherwise it is longer). Further a study of counties
in Indiana some of which permit open carry, concieled carry and no carry, tthe
lowest rate of violent crime was found in those that permited open carry and
highest where no carry is permited. Yes I own guns, I think anyone not excluded
by crimnal history or mental defect who wants to should be permited to own,
possess, and freely carry a fire arm and I belive that in the United States
every resident not excluded by crimminal history or mental defect has the
absolute right to do so free of government restriction.

>> 2. How do you think the average person in 2050 feels about guns? There is
>> probably alot of paranoia against guns, since alot of criminals, bad people,
>> etc., etc. carry them, but on the other hand, corps themselves are protected
>> by guns, which puts the average person somewhere in the middle.
>>

Much the same as the citizens of the United States do now, some of those
who have a safe living enviorment will see guns as the cause of crime or as evil
incarnate, fear them and want them banned. Most of those on the street will see
them as a means of personal safety or a tool of thier trade. The rest will fall
in between. Given the relitive eaze of getting them they are as common as they
are today.

>> 3. How would the corps feel? They would want alot of gun-control laws, but
>> then again, they are protected by them. How would they work the publicity?
>>
They would be for loose control laws (at least those that apply to their
employees), so they have maximum flexability for their operations however they
would take full advantage of their extraterratorality to have extreemly
restrictive rules (laws) in the areas and buildings that they exercise legal
control. With the access control they can exercise on their terrirory there
would be little confirmable adverse publicity to happenings on thier property
(people are not killed they just disapear) in public, advertising budgets can be
extreemly infuental.

An interesting group of questions, thanks for the excuse to
climb up on my soapbox.

David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer