From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Carrying weapons around (was Re: META:  Swords, etc)
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:32:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <9349@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>In article <40764@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>>In article <9319@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>	But, in my opinion, if you're carrying a gun, either you're
>>doing it for bluster (and then you're a fool), or you're doing it
>>because you're prepared to use it.  I'm assuming your friends are
>>the latter and that means that they most definitely are preapred to
>>kill someone with their weapon.  If not, then I'd question why
>>they're carrying the weapon around to begin with.
>
>	Huh? Didn't you read my above paragraph? "Because they feel there
>are enough bad people out there to make it worthwhile to carry around a
>good piece of self  defense...", that's why.

	Precisely.  Which means they are expecting to NEED TO USE
THE GUN SOME DAY.  And I'm assuming your friends aren't idiots (mine
aren't...so I'm assuming that's a valid assumption :) and if they
think they'll need to use their gun, they're willing to kill someone
with it.  Not randomly, not for spite, but killing is killing
whether or you call it self-defense, murder, slaughter, or anything
else.
	That's all I'm saying.  And the biggest problem with people
owning guns today is that there's no system of determining whether
or not the people buying the weapons are capable of using them
responsibly.  I have met far too many people in my few years on this
planet who shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms much less carry
the weapons with them on the street.  (Freeway shooters among
others.)  No, I'm not categorizing your friends in with these
people, but what I'm trying to say is that cops can't tell the
difference between an irresponsible (or crazy) gun-toting person and
a responsible gun-toting person.
	In a good neighborhood where crime is very low, cops are far
more likely to stop you, harass you, etc, if you're carrying a gun.

>	There's a difference between INTENDING TO KILL (that is, I put
>on my sixgun and say to myself, "Hmm... think I'll kill someone today")
>and being READY to KILL (I put on my gun and say "If someone tries to
>kill me today, they'll be in for a world of hurt.")

	I've always been assuming your friends are the latter as I
hope I managed to say above.  (READY really means WILLING, mind you.
I honestly don't know of anyone who carries a gun who isn't willing
to use it to defend himself/herself.  And the only good defense a
gun is for is if you intend on killing someone with it.  Otherwise
you're better off without it.)

>	I fit into the latter camp. While I don't carry a gun (expensive
>things to buy, and a hassle to license), you can bet that if someone
>attacks me, I will do my level best to "level" them. I can't afford
>to take a risk with someone who STARTS aggression, so I have to make
>SURE he won't threaten me again. If he's lucky, he'll be unconscious.

	Again, you're willing to beat the crap out of someone.  Cops
can't take fists away (grin), and fists are rarely as deadly as guns
(or as potentially wanton...)
	This really doesn't apply as much to swords...a missed sword
swing MIGHT hurt a bystander (although then that's REALLY the fault
of the sword-weilder), but gun shots have a considerable range
comparitively and people in gun fights can't tell their bullets to
stop if they miss the enemy.
	But even so, if a city is peaceful and open weaponry is
looked down on, then people WILL get hassled.  In some it might be
customary to walk around in full battle dress/whatever, but the
rarer the adventurers are, the lower the chance of anyone coming
across cities like that...

>	That's simple self-defense. While places like the US often
>require that a person who is attacked limit their responses, I consider
>this a ludicrous attitude. If a man tries to assault you, why should you
>restrain yourself at all? He gave up his rights the moment he stepped
>on yours...

	Not very true, according to the legal system, though.  And
in countries where guns are extremely illegal, I doubt your friends
would get by with stares :).
	It's too bad, I suppose, but for the moment, at least,
that's the law...

>	Personally, I'd be tempted to sue. I'd sure make them show
>REASONABLE suspicion.

	My friends don't have much money to sue the cops once a
month...

>	Maybe. The alternative explanation I heard from friends was that
>"Cops hate the wierd ones. You can't predict them. So why hassle him when
>he might go psycho and try to skewer one of you?"

	That's pretty scary, actually.  If he's that crazy, he
DEFINITELY shouldn't be walking the streets with weapons!

>	Or they simply realized that there was no law in the city 
>forbidding me to wear a 3' blade as long as the thing was not concealed...

	Yeah.  I've found that well-to-do neighborhoods often have
very bored cops who are more than happy to fulfill the paranoid
needs of the people who live in the area, though, and people tend to
get hassled over strange things.

>	Why so? Anyone who initiates force in Zarathanton (the main
>city) or the other associated cities, and who isn't appropriately
>punished by the target of the aggression, deals with the Lords Justiciar...
>not a few months hence, but generally within a matter of minutes. So
>attacks on ordinary folk are very rare, and even collateral damage is either
>rare or immediately compensated for by the combatants... or once more
>the Justiciars show up.

	What about innocent bystanders getting hurt?  I can think of
many a time in the past (this is AD&D, but I doubt the game system
matters) that our party had to make a hasty retreat from a city
after a combat injured several innocents (not by our spells, but
still).
	And what's the guarantee that the combatants will have the
money to compensate for damages?  (Or are the poor ones not allowed
in?  Heh)  From past experience, our parties have been more broke
than not...
[snip snip!  interesting stuff deleted, I'm afraid...sigh]
>>	Again, your world is a high-risk world (especially for them
>>adventurers!) and being armed can be accepted.  If the world was at
>>relative peace, no wars were going on in the nearby vincinity,
>>running around armed may very well be cause for alarm.  (And I can
>>think of a lot of examples in your world where being adventurers
>>would get parties kicked out of cities.  "We don't want our peaceful
>>city turned into a warfield!  Out!  Out!"  Heck, if it's as
>>dangerous as you say, what inn would open their doors to an
>>adventuring party?  "Yeah, there were some adventurers here last
>>week.  A group of kobold assassins caught up with them in the night
>>and nearly burnt down half the inn.  At least they were nice enough
>>to pay for the damage...")
>
>	The world isn't that dangerous IN the cities... outside, however,
>it can be pretty rough. There weren't many wars, or such things. It's just
>a dangerous world.

	What bothers me, though, is whether or not there's a
guarantee stopping the danger from coming into the city!  You
stated yourself that an unarmed adventurer in the city was asking to
get him/herself into a ton of trouble (or at least dead).  That
means that there's a daily threat to an adventurer's life -- even
while within supposdly "safe" cities (walled or not, I guess).
	"Trouble" can come in a variety of forms, including the old
Enraged Dragon.  (Did Bilbo and co. have enough money to refund THAT
city of its damages?  Hmn...guess they did, actually...)
	The tamer the dangers (or at least the less mega
-destructive it is) the more I might be able to buy that argument,
but if you pretended that gang members in downtown LA were
Adventurers and they only shot at Other Adventurers, I still think a
lot of people would want to leave if there was enough violence,
regardless of who was involved.  (Certainly watching people chopping
off heads and limbs in the street, regardless of their profession,
isn't exactly nurturing toward the children!)