Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The Hamm ljvance@*******.edu
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 13:11:40 -0700
I was just watching an A&E special on guns and gun manufacturing, and they
are developing a gun with a microchip receiver in it, and accompanying
wrist band transmitter. The gun will not fire if it is not receiving the
signal.

I thought this would work for those who don't want looting of the bodies,
also could increase the effectiveness of riggers who could jam that signal,
and keep the guns from firing, which in turn would increase the
effectiveness of 'alternate' combat options.


Lloyd Vance
->The Hamm
Message no. 2
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*********.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 16:33:48 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: The Hamm <ljvance@*******.edu>


> I was just watching an A&E special on guns and gun manufacturing,
and they
> are developing a gun with a microchip receiver in it, and
accompanying
> wrist band transmitter. The gun will not fire if it is not
receiving the
> signal.

> I thought this would work for those who don't want looting of the
bodies,
> also could increase the effectiveness of riggers who could jam that
signal,
> and keep the guns from firing, which in turn would increase the
> effectiveness of 'alternate' combat options.

? Why don't just take the wrist transmitter also. [Though the jamming
is a good idea...]

Da Twink Daddy
bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ# 514984
Message no. 3
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 20:38:29 -0400
At 13.11 07-03-99 -0700, you wrote:
>are developing a gun with a microchip receiver in it, and accompanying
>wrist band transmitter. The gun will not fire if it is not receiving the
>signal.

Gun still won't work when it does recieve the damn signal. They demoed it
a couple of months ago, and it took the designers, both of whom are
electrical engineers and gunsmiths, twenty minutes of poking in the guts of
it to get it to work. Twnety minutes is more than enough time to kill
someone, reguardless of your method of choice. No thanks, that crap
doesn't go on metal children.
It also isn't hard to disable. You just have to know basic gunsmithing
and electronics to rip it out. Say, B/R Firearms and Electronics rolls,
both TN 3, to disable it in game terms.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 4
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 21:42:49 EDT
In a message dated 7/3/99 8:39:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> Gun still won't work when it does recieve the damn signal. They
demoed it
> a couple of months ago, and it took the designers, both of whom are
> electrical engineers and gunsmiths, twenty minutes of poking in the guts of
> it to get it to work. Twnety minutes is more than enough time to kill
> someone, reguardless of your method of choice. No thanks, that crap
> doesn't go on metal children.
> It also isn't hard to disable. You just have to know basic
gunsmithing
> and electronics to rip it out. Say, B/R Firearms and Electronics rolls,
> both TN 3, to disable it in game terms.

That of course assuming nothing changes in the intervening years. Such
technology will just be yet another price-point option IMO.
Message no. 5
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 22:19:49 -0400
IronRaven wrote:
>
> At 13.11 07-03-99 -0700, you wrote:
> >are developing a gun with a microchip receiver in it, and accompanying
> >wrist band transmitter. The gun will not fire if it is not receiving the
> >signal.
>
> Gun still won't work when it does recieve the damn signal. They demoed it
> a couple of months ago, and it took the designers, both of whom are
> electrical engineers and gunsmiths, twenty minutes of poking in the guts of
> it to get it to work.

And Windows crashed on Mr. Gates when he went to demo it too, it
happens. :)

--
Iridios
"Accept what you cannot avoid,
Avoid what you cannot accept."
Message no. 6
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 22:44:17 -0400
At 22.19 07-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
>And Windows crashed on Mr. Gates when he went to demo it too, it
>happens. :)

Reason #1 why I haven't "upgraded" to Win98.

When you trained and lived with weapons, and medical and survival
equipement your entire life, you develop certain opinions about technology
in general and defensive/life-saving technologies in particular. One, it
should be simple to use. Two, it should be easy to fix. Three, the first
public demostration of the production model should not suffer a fatal
malfunction.
If a gun jams, and you can't clear it in a second with your bare hands, it
is a fatal malfunction unless you can bring "plan B" into action in a
heartbeat. That isn't the opinion of a hunter, or target shooter, I'll
admit. That is the opinion of someone who has seen the worst of humanity
on the individual scale, and has it directed at him.
Most of the time it is a curse. For roleplaying, it is a boon, becuase
you know how people react when the shit hits the fan and you are in the
jetwash. And one of those things is, if the facy technology you thought
would save your butt dies, so do you. If you are lucky.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 7
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 22:55:46 -0400
At 21.42 07-03-99 EDT, you wrote:
>That of course assuming nothing changes in the intervening years. Such
>technology will just be yet another price-point option IMO.

Application problem:
Weapons issued by corporate (don't kid yourself, they exist here and now),
miliatary and other governmental forces have large numbers of weapons,
which are signed out of an armour when they are needed. The time to
personalize the weapons, the book keeping needed to keep track of where
everything is, and the expense of the technology makes things like
biometric readouts less than desirable. It also means that if Grunt A
looses his weapon, and Grunt B is beyond needing the one he still has in
his hands, Grunt A is unarmed.
Usage of the radio wristlets and magnetic rings are very high-tech and
politically correct sounding, but in relaity, you only take weapons from
dead enemies. Grab the appropriate safety mechasm at the same time. While
they are more universal than biometrics, they are also easier to compromise.
It also has the issue of someone who has to shoot from cover or is wounded
but still provide defensive fire, but for various reasons must shoot from
the offside being just as screwed as Grunt A in the first example.

Combat is not a game. You can't take you pencils and dice and character
sheets and go to bed if you get eliminated. You can rollplay or roleplay.
If you roleplay, and your character buys it, you are effectively dead. All
the techno-crap in the infinant reaches can change that.




CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 8
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 13:11:04 +1000
> CyberRaven Kevin Dole

Sooooo.....

CyberRaven (or IronRaven as your email tells us..) been in the military somewhere,
perhaps?

Not that your emails dont imply this...

I think you can compromise though. Use biometrics (or their equiv.) on civvie
weapons.. and use the other stuff on the 'much higher regulated' militaries weapons.
Could this work?

GreyWolf

* So if I dig only half a hole - can I escape before Im buried? *
Message no. 9
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 23:11:57 EDT
In a message dated 7/3/99 10:56:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> Weapons issued by corporate (don't kid yourself, they exist here and now),
> miliatary and other governmental forces have large numbers of weapons,
> which are signed out of an armour when they are needed.

Actually, in alot of police departments, even if the gun is issued it is
still taken home, and is that officers. As well, most agencies purchase their
own guns. Security guards also purchase their own in most cases. Corp
security would most likely follow that idea.

> It also means that if Grunt A
> looses his weapon, and Grunt B is beyond needing the one he still has in
> his hands, Grunt A is unarmed.

Unless of course, the corporation issuing such guns, also has them tied to a
specific system for all guards, such as smart-links (with a code common to
all) or maybe a lanyard style fiber-optic, which feeds into a code-box.

> Usage of the radio wristlets and magnetic rings are very high-tech and
> politically correct sounding, but in relaity, you only take weapons from
> dead enemies. Grab the appropriate safety mechasm at the same time. While
> they are more universal than biometrics, they are also easier to
compromise.

This being the main problem with the fiber-optic line, but they should just
tie it into another system, or in some other way make it inaccesable.

> It also has the issue of someone who has to shoot from cover or is
wounded
> but still provide defensive fire, but for various reasons must shoot from
> the offside being just as screwed as Grunt A in the first example.

Sure, that is why each such system would have a disable command.

> Combat is not a game. You can't take you pencils and dice and
character
> sheets and go to bed if you get eliminated. You can rollplay or roleplay.
> If you roleplay, and your character buys it, you are effectively dead. All
> the techno-crap in the infinant reaches can change that.
Not even sure how to answer this. I have seen many modifications to weapons,
most of which (like almost everything in firearms) is personal preference. It
may very well be that the corporation does not want the added expense or
trouble of a "smartgun" system. However, the reason Colt (one of the majors
in developing it) is doing so, is because of a lucrative Law Enforcement
market. It seems too high of a percentage of officer deaths, are caused by
their, or another officers weapons. Not in a "long-run" but in a grab and
wrestle with the weapon.
I am not sure where you come up with the "rollplay" vs "roleplay"
line
though. Shadowrun combat IS a game, you can take your pencils and paper and
rulebooks to bed with you if they die, you can even make up a new PC, and
chalk it up to experience ("Live and learn, die and forget, unless you're a
role-playing character") Mind you, I am not advocating tossing PCs to the
grinder (unless you are an EGM), but it IS just a game.
IRL, the science still has applications, though not on my guns.
Message no. 10
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 01:03:27 CST
>From: The Hamm <ljvance@*******.edu>
>I was just watching an A&E special on guns and gun manufacturing, and they
>are developing a gun with a microchip receiver in it, and accompanying
>wrist band transmitter. The gun will not fire if it is not receiving the
>signal.
>
>I thought this would work for those who don't want looting of the bodies,
>also could increase the effectiveness of riggers who could jam that signal,
>and keep the guns from firing, which in turn would increase the
>effectiveness of 'alternate' combat options.

Yeah, I saw that special too. I'm surprised that sucha gun hasn't been
intro'd into SR. Much cheaper than that system that user the gun owner's
handprint. Hmmmm. Now, I'm thinking.

Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 11
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 11:29:10 +0200
According to The Hamm, at 13:11 on 3 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> I was just watching an A&E special on guns and gun manufacturing, and they
> are developing a gun with a microchip receiver in it, and accompanying
> wrist band transmitter. The gun will not fire if it is not receiving the
> signal.

If you own the Corporate Security Handbook, check out the equipment
section, keeping an eye open for the individualized biometric safety (IBS)
system -- it does what you describe, but using the firer's palmprint to
"activate" the weapon. (Or, for those with cyberarms, a chip implanted in
the hand in almost exactly the same way the wristband you mentioned is
supposed to work.)

Although I don't like the game mechanics behind this item, I must say. I
mysel would make it a palmprint scanner built into the gun's handgrip,
with a rating like that of other identification scanners and maglocks. The
IBS, as described in CorpSec Handbook, is too perfect for SR, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
E-mails uit het verleden bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst.
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 09:17:10 EDT
In a message dated 7/4/99 5:29:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gurth@******.nl
writes:

> Although I don't like the game mechanics behind this item, I must say. I
> mysel would make it a palmprint scanner built into the gun's handgrip,
> with a rating like that of other identification scanners and maglocks. The
> IBS, as described in CorpSec Handbook, is too perfect for SR, IMHO.
I remember the one in the Ka-ge that was somewhat better, though similar. As
I mentioned in the other post, I think such a system as this is perfect with
a Smartgun link, allowing only smart-links with a certain "key" in the
programming to interface, though the holder can then "unlock" teh gun, for
off hand use, or to hand to the mage that isn't "smart" etc.
Message no. 13
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:49:09 +0200
According to Schizi@***.com, at 9:17 on 4 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> > Although I don't like the game mechanics behind this item, I must say. I
> > mysel would make it a palmprint scanner built into the gun's handgrip,
> > with a rating like that of other identification scanners and maglocks. The
> > IBS, as described in CorpSec Handbook, is too perfect for SR, IMHO.
> I remember the one in the Ka-ge that was somewhat better, though similar.

You mean one of "our own" Steve Kenson's early efforts in Ka*Ge issue 9,
page 35? :) Reading the description of Gun Lokk(tm), the first model is
very similar to the IBS system from CorpSec, while the second uses the
smartlink to unlock the weapon. Essentially IBS and the pattern-
recognition model Gun Lokk are the same, except that the Gun Lokk system
can recognize up to six users, making it much more useful for security
forces than a "straight" IBS system is.

Still, it has the same drawback as IBS, from a game point of view: it's
ratingless. That means it won't be possible (without some house rules) to
allow characters to try and bypass the system as they could with a
maglock.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
E-mails uit het verleden bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst.
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 14
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:20:40 EDT
In a message dated 7/4/99 1:49:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gurth@******.nl
writes:

> You mean one of "our own" Steve Kenson's early efforts in Ka*Ge issue 9,
> page 35? :)

hmm, I guess I should read some of the names, sometimes? :-)
>
> Still, it has the same drawback as IBS, from a game point of view: it's
> ratingless. That means it won't be possible (without some house rules) to
> allow characters to try and bypass the system as they could with a
> maglock.
I doubt a system like this could be by-passed manually, truthfuy. Perhaps a
rating for a software program-style attack, like the rigger decryption
system,but for smart-links?
The reason I doubt for manual jury-rigging= the size of the item, as well
as teh integral nature (with the gun) of the electronics. It would be like
trying to set a digital watches time by opening up the back and getting out
your pliers :-)
IMO of course.
Message no. 15
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 16:32:41 -0400
At 23.11 07-03-99 EDT, you wrote:
>Actually, in alot of police departments, even if the gun is issued it is
>still taken home, and is that officers. As well, most agencies purchase
their

Yes, but that weapon is still subject to instant presentation and recall.
It is issued to that officers, but they still have to be able to turn it
in, in as good of shpae at the time of issue less normal wear, on a moments
notice. And the Creator protect you if it has any unauthorised and
undocumented modifications, even so much as new grips.
I know a lot of cops and law enforcement agencies- the average
department lacks an armourer. Have to send it to an outsider for fitting,
and then you get involved in politics, which is the eyes of the politicians
who have walked a beat in a decade, is more important.

>own guns. Security guards also purchase their own in most cases. Corp
>security would most likely follow that idea.

Not on the scale that SR talks about, nor the scale that has been used by
US and European corporates operating in the the "underdeveloped world".
That is an issue of weaons that are tightly inventories, just like in the
military.

>Sure, that is why each such system would have a disable command.

Kinda negates the purpose if it can be done quickly by anyone.

>trouble of a "smartgun" system. However, the reason Colt (one of the majors
>in developing it) is doing so, is because of a lucrative Law Enforcement

Nope, it is being done for political reasons whose sole basis is survival.

>their, or another officers weapons. Not in a "long-run" but in a grab and
>wrestle with the weapon.

Yes, but there was a survey conducted about two years ago that has been
buried. In that survey, the vast majority (80%+) said that they would not
be comfortable with such a system. They voiced confidence in retention
holsters and other mechanical systems, not electronics and magnetics.
You train to deal with that situation, extensively. Most perps don't.
Thier loss.

> I am not sure where you come up with the "rollplay" vs
"roleplay" line

"Rollplay" is where your charcter is just a collection of figures.
"Roleplay" is where you ARE your character, and they are a part of you.

Sorry about my, hmmm, "intensity" I guess you could call it. On this
list, I am not only myself, but also my PCs, each of which is based on a
minute component of my own being, and reacto to things as we would. I
forgot to put the buffer in beteween my mind and hands last night. I get a
little wierd(ier than normal) this time of year, what with the 4th and all.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 16
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 16:49:02 -0400
At 16.20 07-04-99 EDT, you wrote:
>I doubt a system like this could be by-passed manually, truthfuy. Perhaps a
>rating for a software program-style attack, like the rigger decryption

1. Detail strip the weapon, and mean ALL the way
2. Isolate the oppropriate circuitry.
3. Destroy afore mentioned circuitry.
4. Add any bypass wires required for continued operation if using an
electrical ignition system.

>as teh integral nature (with the gun) of the electronics. It would be like
>trying to set a digital watches time by opening up the back and getting out
>your pliers :-)

Actually, more like disabling the alarm by tearing out the beeper.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 17
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 17:02:01 EDT
In a message dated 7/4/99 4:33:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> >Actually, in alot of police departments, even if the gun is issued it is
> >still taken home, and is that officers. As well, most agencies purchase
> their
>
> Yes, but that weapon is still subject to instant presentation and
recall.
Depends greatly on the individual department here. I work at a gun store, and
some of the departments around here are the "qualify once a year, fire 40
bullets, 25 have to hit the paper" type. Guns so rusted, the rust actually
pours of with some cleaning (and this on stainless <not stain-never> guns :-)

<snip>
> >own guns. Security guards also purchase their own in most cases. Corp
> >security would most likely follow that idea.
>
> Not on the scale that SR talks about, nor the scale that has been
used by
> US and European corporates operating in the the "underdeveloped world".
> That is an issue of weaons that are tightly inventories, just like in the
> military.

In some cases I will agree with you, in the large organizations (especially
with full-autos), but that is not all organizations, by a long shot. SR is a
very varied place. :-)

> >Sure, that is why each such system would have a disable command.
>
> Kinda negates the purpose if it can be done quickly by anyone.

What I meant, you can turn off the "safety system" for your weapon, then
until turned back on, that weapon does not require such a verification.

> >trouble of a "smartgun" system. However, the reason Colt (one of the
majors
>
> >in developing it) is doing so, is because of a lucrative Law Enforcement
>
> Nope, it is being done for political reasons whose sole basis is
survival.

According to Colt, it is the reason I stated, I believe in capitolism, and
they are going where the money is. Otherwise, if it was strictly political,
they <Colt> would have aided those trying to mandate it. I believe a
corporations motive to be money, and that is what I see in this case also.

> Yes, but there was a survey conducted about two years ago that has
been
> buried. In that survey, the vast majority (80%+) said that they would not
> be comfortable with such a system. They voiced confidence in retention
> holsters and other mechanical systems, not electronics and magnetics.

This goes with the "take what you are issued" part though. IMO of coruse :-)
Of course, the "sheriff" (voted in politician) in my county does not carry a
weapon. (His wife won't let him) go figure.


<snip roll vs role>
Age old terms, I just meant "how do you apply them to this discussion" but
that has already been shown, so forget it :-)

Of course, this is one of those discussions that should begin with IMO, and
YMMV all around. Real Life( ™ NovaTech Industries©2060) is not so cut and
dry. :-)
Message no. 18
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:32:57 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990704163241.00886630@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 23.11 07-03-99 EDT, you wrote:
>>their, or another officers weapons. Not in a "long-run" but in a grab
and
>>wrestle with the weapon.

> Yes, but there was a survey conducted about two years ago that has been
>buried. In that survey, the vast majority (80%+) said that they would not
>be comfortable with such a system. They voiced confidence in retention
>holsters and other mechanical systems, not electronics and magnetics.

> You train to deal with that situation, extensively. Most perps don't.
>Thier loss.

The answer to that situation is hand razors. The bad guy grabs for your
weapon. You grab his hand. You use your razors to cut his tendons and
muscles to the bone. He now cannot pull the trigger of your sidearm even
if he gets it out of your holster.

Think about the reality of grappling with someone who can sprout scalpel
blades from their fingertips, and just how badly they could cut you in a
few eyeblinks. Every time you let them touch you, you'll be cut. Not nice.
Not fun.


>> I am not sure where you come up with the "rollplay" vs
"roleplay" line
>
> "Rollplay" is where your charcter is just a collection of figures.
> "Roleplay" is where you ARE your character, and they are a part of
you.

I'd agree with that. You can take it too far, of course... but if you lose a
character and think "oh, well", you're not roleplaying. If your PC dies and
you feel a sense of loss... you're roleplaying.

If you don't care about your creations, you won't play them properly.

>I get a
>little wierd(ier than normal) this time of year, what with the 4th and all.

Congratulations on your independence, you rebellious colonial scum :)

May you continue to prosper and succeed for many more years.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 19
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:24:23 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990703225546.0087b3d0@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
> Weapons issued by corporate (don't kid yourself, they exist here and now),
>miliatary and other governmental forces have large numbers of weapons,
>which are signed out of an armour when they are needed. The time to
>personalize the weapons, the book keeping needed to keep track of where
>everything is, and the expense of the technology makes things like
>biometric readouts less than desirable. It also means that if Grunt A
>looses his weapon, and Grunt B is beyond needing the one he still has in
>his hands, Grunt A is unarmed.

You do _not_ want to lose a rifleman because of a broken extractor claw.
I've seen said breakage occur, and it was with an L1A1 (UK FN-FAL - one
of the most fearsomely robust weapons ever made). The breakage was
real. Our section commander had Vicki swap rifles with one of the
'casualties' the Directing Staff had told us we'd suffered. Result? We only
lost one person, not two.

> It also has the issue of someone who has to shoot from cover or is
>wounded
>but still provide defensive fire, but for various reasons must shoot from
>the offside being just as screwed as Grunt A in the first example.

I've had a (off-line) debate with IronRaven about off-hand fire - he buys
into it, I don't - but this point remains valid. I know I can't hit the broad
side of a barn firing left-handed, left-shouldered and left-eyed - but the
enemy doesn't know that. I can at least put down suppressive fire if my
right hand is disabled.

If my rifle will only fire for my undamaged, clean, uncontaminated, right
hand... then too bad. Any of those change, I'm disarmed. Allow tolerance
for any of them, and the Bad Guys can steal my weapon.

Tough choice, ain't it?

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 20
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 11:49:33 +0200
According to Schizi@***.com, at 16:20 on 4 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> > You mean one of "our own" Steve Kenson's early efforts in Ka*Ge issue
9,
> > page 35? :)
>
> hmm, I guess I should read some of the names, sometimes? :-)

The thing about Ka*Ge is that this information is hidden in the table of
contents instead of being displayed with the article, so it's easy to
miss.

> > Still, it has the same drawback as IBS, from a game point of view: it's
> > ratingless. That means it won't be possible (without some house rules) to
> > allow characters to try and bypass the system as they could with a
> > maglock.
> I doubt a system like this could be by-passed manually, truthfuy. Perhaps a
> rating for a software program-style attack, like the rigger decryption
> system,but for smart-links?

Or by using one of the rubber glove type things -- SR3 page 235 tells us
how to defeat print scanners, but these rules can't apply to the weapon
locks simpy because for those rules to work, the print scanner has to have
a rating...

> The reason I doubt for manual jury-rigging= the size of the item, as well
> as teh integral nature (with the gun) of the electronics.

That's true, but I would give a penalty to the TN for characters who want
to electronically override the system, rather than forbid it.

> It would be like trying to set a digital watches time by opening up the
> back and getting out your pliers :-)

Easy enough, really. The buttons on a digital watch usually operate small
switches inside the watch. Press those switches with your pliers, and you
can set the time :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
E-mails uit het verleden bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst.
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Present day tech on guns
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 09:16:07 -0400
At 17.02 07-04-99 EDT, you wrote:
>some of the departments around here are the "qualify once a year, fire 40
>bullets, 25 have to hit the paper" type. Guns so rusted, the rust actually

Yep, we have a few of those in my area. :( And do you think that some
form of IBS system would be spomething that they could maintain.

>According to Colt, it is the reason I stated, I believe in capitolism, and

>they are going where the money is. Otherwise, if it was strictly political,
>they <Colt> would have aided those trying to mandate it. I believe a

With the lawsuits, the big outfits are afraid they are gong to get thier
balls in a vice, and the foreign manufactures are going to bail. It is a
matter of long term surivival, with what qualifies as survival being
mandated by pure capitalism.

>Of course, the "sheriff" (voted in politician) in my county does not carry a

>weapon. (His wife won't let him) go figure.

Geez, and I thought my county sherriff (also an elected polititian) was
scary. He bought an antique muzzle loader at an auction, and was cleaning
the it in his office. He but a cap on it, and step outside to flush the
flash hole. It had appearently be stored loaded. Fortunately, no one was
in the cruiser when the ball went through the windshield and lodged in the
headpeice of the dirver's seat.

>Age old terms, I just meant "how do you apply them to this discussion" but
>that has already been shown, so forget it :-)

I was rambling. As Ip ointed out, I speak not only for mayself, but also
my characters (and other than claustraphobia, I have passed every psych
eval I've ever taken, so I'm not MPD), most of whom would be "combat
monsters" without roleplaying.

>Of course, this is one of those discussions that should begin with IMO, and
>YMMV all around. Real Life( ™ NovaTech Industries©2060) is not so cut and

Yah, it pro'ly should have.


CyberRaven Kevin Dole
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Present day tech on guns, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.