Types of gun control laws

Types of Gun Control Laws

People that push for gun control, up to and including confiscation, often propose and create legislation that is more punitive against the gun community then it is helpful. Being charitable you could argue what they are doing is raising the barrier to firearms (and thus firearms harms) or trying to accomplish harm reduction one step at a time. High barriers to entry are certainly one way to reduce deaths. European countries show that you can have these high barriers to entry and still have sport shooting and hunting. Less accepting interpretations are that these are merely baby steps to total bans and confiscation.

The charitable arguments fly in the face of the idea of people having a right to the tools of self-defense or the proclamation that gun control advocates don't want to "Take your guns." Although lately, many gun control advocates have been much more outspoken that they *do* want to take our guns. I can understand that, but I'm not going to address it here. What I wanted to discuss was three broad categories of gun control laws and their actual impact on both harm and people that own guns.

There are reasonable gun control measures that can impact the harm done by firearms with little to no effect on lawful gun ownership. These laws address some problems and many are in place in California. While California is not a "Gun-friendly" state, it is the second largest firearms economy in the US. this shows that gun ownership can withstand some basic protections.  Background checks on all firearm transfers, registration (with protections from abuse), and safe storage requirements for example. When written and implemented properly, these do not hinder the lawful gun owner to any substantial degree, but make it harder for those who should not own guns to acquire or keep them. A basic safety test, written and practical, may help prevent accidents with minimal cost to the prospective gun owner.

There are also laws and policies that would probably reduce harms but at the cost of people being able to defend themselves. A cost disproportionately borne by the impoverished and marginalized populations, rich white guys would still have all the guns they want. Laws like licensing requirements for ownership, police interviews before purchase, make it so that people who may need a gun for defense in a timely fashion won't be able to get one. Restrictions on ammo, parts and accessories that reduces availability and raises costs on ownership and practice. Restrictions on the ownership of handguns/concealable firearms would likely reduce criminal harm at the cost of people who need to defend themselves. Magazine capacity restrictions might make a difference in rare instances while criminalizing millions of people. Training requirements to purchase, raising the age to purchase above the age of adulthood.

And then there are things that do little to nothing to reduce harms but directly affect lawful gun owners. Assault weapons bans, the restrictive California Safe Handgun Roster and relatedly the requirement to develop or deploy microstamping or "Smart gun technology". Import bans. Waiting periods, especially for those that own guns. The restrictions on Short Barreled Rifles (in markets that allow ownership of handguns) and suppressors/silencers.

Some good science is needed. Gun rights proponents need to listen to it. But the people proposing restrictions need to target their restrictions to the desired result. And gun people should hold them accountable for punitive laws while accepting the benign ones and discussing where the line exists between too far and too harmful.

ShotgunsInGame

The Place of the Shotgun in Role-Playing Games

The shotgun is possibly one of the most versatile firearms, and is attributed with many different features in games. It is unique in modern firearms in its typically bore size and ability to fire multiple projectiles and unique projectiles with no equivalent in any other firearm type. The shotgun is paradoxically the cheap gun of the masses and the sporting gun of the wealthy 1%. It is strongly associated with both hunting and combat. Some form of shotgun is likely to the only type of firearm available to people in countries with strong gun control. All of these factors make it difficult to adjudicate and everyone has their own ideas about how shotguns should behave.

The Facts

Shotgun shells are hold-overs from the days of black powder firearms. Primitive firearms would often be loaded with multiple balls to increase their hit potential. As rifling was introduced to firearms, the shotgun became it's own type of gun. As smokeless powder was introduced and pressures increase for most rifle and pistol rounds, shotgun cartridges only had moderate increases in pressure and velocity.

For example a typical 12 gauge black powder shell was 7,000PSI and a modern smokeless powder shell is around 11,500PSI. This is still nearly DOUBLE, so by no means should you ever try to fire smokeless shells in a black powder shotgun! But for comparison 38 S&W (a moderate black powder pistol cartridge) was 14,500PSI, and 9mm Luger is 35,000PSI (a moderate smokeless powder moderate pistol round). Notebook, all PSI are approximate.

Defined by a larger then normal smoothbore firing a comparatively low pressure cartridge, the shotgun serves as an accessible platform for projectile experimentation. The low pressure cartridge means that shotguns can be manufactured inexpensively. The large bore makes a variety of projectiles and payloads possible. The prevalence of multiple projectile cartridges makes shotguns ideal against small moving targets like birds and Drones in the Tiny and Small size classes. Multiple projectile rounds have less velocity and poor ballistic coefficents then pistol and rifle rounds, making them shorter ranged and less prone the over-penetration. The large bore size makes exotic rounds like Taser slugs and tear gas dispensers possible.

Shotgun Ammunition

Modern shotgun shells can be broken down into 3 general categories. Birdshot, Buckshot and Slug. There are also specialist shells we'll discuss later. The smaller the shot size, the more pellets per shot. Penetration, range and damage all increase with shot size. Slugs are single projectiles and are typically as large as the bore (excepting rifled slugs mentioned in specialist ammunition)

For the purposes of role-playing games there is no reason to differentiate between the different types of birdshot, Heavy "turkey" shot or light loads will all be essentially equal. All birdshot is incredibly damaging at close ranges but lacks penetration, especially at range. By no means should birdshot be considered "safe" but at ranges beyond 5m, the wounds are probably not fatal.

Buckshot is an array of black powder pistol sized balls over a stout powder charge. While it doesn't spread enough to effectively hit multiple people at a reasonable range, the spread may help make a hit out of a poorly aimed shot. Alternately at range a miss may impact several people with a single pellet, doing damage similar to a black powder pistol. In game terms, this probably is not a rule that needs to be put in. It could be a useful tool to tell a story about the harm of stray shots or or being responsible, but it shouldn't be an everyday issue.

Slugs are a single projectile that is most often bore sized. This should generally have a bit more damage but should not have any hit enhancement rules. There are also sabot shells that require rifled shotgun barrels or chokes but effectively turn a shotgun into a black powder rifle in range and power.

There is a wide variety of speciality ammunition for shotguns, Explosive shells, rubber shot and slugs that do stun or bashing damage as opposed to lethal. Shells the disperse tear gas and fire flash bang devices. Even shells that don't "fire" but produce a shower of hot particles that can light targets on fire. More fantastic shells for games could include rounds designed to target a creature's vulnerabilities. Shotguns excel at allowing characters to craft shells loaded with silver shot, or salt or wooden spikes. Enterprising characters may even take fantastic materials to create new shells that have special effects, like super metal flechettes that are exceptionally armor piercing.   GMs should definitely exercise discretion in allowing and adjudicating specialty shells in games, especially historical ones.

Shotgun Design:

Most shotguns in history have been single shot or double barrel break-open weapons. Allowing 1 or 2 shots before reloading which should be a move action at the very least. double barrel shotguns can fire very rapidly, or even simultaneously, firing 2 shots at a single target, but with the second shot having a minor penalty to hit.

From about the turn of the 20th century on there have been lever action and pump action shotguns that hold 3-8 shots and take an attack action to reload a single shell at a time. Just after the First World War semiautomatic shotguns that reload about the same speed as pump and lever guns but may allow 2 shots at the same target like a double barrel.

At the end of the 20th century shotguns with detachable magazines have emerged, making pump action and semi-auto shotguns that can reload the same as semi-auto pistols and rifles. These magazines are bulky, low capacity and expensive. Typically holding 5 rounds and encumbering like a rifle magazine, the 10 round versions encumber more then a heavy pistol and cost around $100 in early 21st century dollars. The 20 round drums encumber like a satchel and cost around $250 dollars.

HomemadeGunsAndFirstAmdmnt

More On Weapons Control

Here I reiterate and discuss in further detail the line for "Making" of firearms and restricted weapons that I began talking about in "Weapons Control". If knives or other hand weapons should be restricted in manufacture, the same concepts would apply there as well.

Is an object you create "Speech" as defined by the 1st Amendment? Are some objects speech and some objects not? Is distributing objects you create the same as distributing newspapers or magazines? Do objects have to be art to be protected? Who decides if something is art or not? Political speech is typically said to be especially protected under the 1st Amendment, a significant number of people would argue that a rifle engraved with "Ultima Ratio Populus" is pretty political speech.

Relatedly, how far back should guns be regulated in the production stream? Where is the line between a block of metal (or plastic) and a firearm? When does a person's 1st amendment right to make get overruled by the safety requirements of regulating firearms?

Example:

If I create a plan drawing for a firearm receiver, can we agree that would be protected speech? Now let's say I digitize the drawing, just as I'm digitizing this writing. Now I have a 3d digital representation of my drawing. Lets say I send that file to you, Sill equal to speech, right? I could publish it on the internet and it's really no different then a DeviantArt post. Should 3D drawings or plans be more regulated then any other digital object? For example a blog post about incredibly dangerous chemicals. Let's say someone downloads my 3d drawing and feeds it into a capable 3D printer or CNC milling machine capable of making it a functional gun part. When does their print become a firearm that needs to be regulated? 1%, 50%, 80% (the legal limit at the moment) 100%?

Now let's go back a step or two and say that I print out a book with blueprints on how to make a receiver. I publish the book and sell it by mail. Someone follows my directions and using hand tools and a block of metal/plastic/whatever. Let's say it takes 100 cuts co create a functional receiver (the component that is legally a firearm). At which cut does the block of metal become a gun? The current BATFE standard is cut 81 or 81%. Who is responsible for the firearm created? The people who made the plans or the people who cut the metal? Is there a difference between these two examples?

 My argument is that while we should prohibit and punish prohibited persons from owning guns, even homemade ones; that it's pretty difficult to prevent people from making guns. Search for Luty sub-machinegun for an example. My partner argument is that if you restrict precursor parts, like California is probably going to do, you aren't going to prevent the determined from getting a gun, you are going to prevent the law-abiding from getting a gun part for a gun they probably have already bought legally. Further you need to define where a precursor part or making begins and understand that the line could be used to punish people for simple lengths of pipe.

Conclusion:

If I was creating the laws, I'd allow people to create non-NFA firearms without other restriction, but require them to be serialized and registered if they are transferred from the original maker. I'd also be OK with restrictions on the number you can transfer to others in a year (something like one a month) before you have to abide by the laws and regulations for gun manufacturers. Of course I'd subject these to the same rules I think we should have for other firearms transfers, specifically background checks and registration.

I would not restrict plans or 3D print files or other information on making guns or other weapons as freedom of expression is more important then trying to hold back the tide of information when we are already a meter underwater. This information exists. People can intuit and create firearms from the basic concept. Even if we removed firearms from the public, the information would exist. We live in a world where people grew up freezeframing VHS movies to copy details of props because they want to make their own. If firearms exist anywhere in media, people will reinvent the wheel to create them. Not to mention the oral history of how they work. The genie is out of the bottle, all that is being done is refining the process.

Weapon Control

Weapon Control:

Resolved: 

There is a substantial public interest in preventing people who are likely to harm others from having access to weapons that may make such harm more harmful or easier. Further, that background checks and registration and other restrictions are effective methods in preventing those likely to harm from obtaining such weapons while enabling those below a determined threshold access to said weapons for lawful purposes, including self defense and the defense of others.

Query: 

What is the lower boundary of such weapons that should be controlled? We can assume all armaments such as cannon and explosives should be tightly controlled. It is fairly well settled that cartridge firearms should generally be controlled. It is a point of contention whether black powder and muzzleloading firearms should be controlled. Some jurisdictions have advocated and begun schemes to control knives and other hand weapons. Similarly certain jurisdictions restrict or prohibit airguns, replica firearms and other projectile devices that cause little to no harm in human sized creatures by design.

At what point do we say “These must be controlled, These need not be controlled”? What should be the criteria of the distinction? Is the prohibition strictly on possession, or should weapons where possession is unregulated be regulated for carry and other non-violent use? Is such a definition movable, restricting and banning the most dangerous weapons first and working down the list until effectively all weapons are prohibited or strongly controlled?

Query: 

To what point should controlled weapons be suppressed? In the case of firearms, does the right of freedom of expression interfere with the restrictions on manufacture? Does the right of free expression interfere with restrictions on firearms designs and blueprints and technical data? Do we restrict instruction on the building of firearms? If so, how far are we willing to go to do so?

Example: 

Firearms transfers and manufacture for profit are regulated and restricted, but manufacture for personal use is not*. Assuming that this is a danger and we regulate and restrict personal manufacture, should we restrict the creation and distribution of plans for firearms? If so, how does that line up with the right of free expression? If digital speech (such as a blog post, DeviantArt pic, Flash Animation or video game) is protected speech, why wouldn’t digital blueprints for a firearm be the same?

Final Query:

If we agree that personal firearms manufacture should be regulated, where do we draw the line of when the crime of unregulated manufacture is committed? When the plans are drawn? When the raw materials are acquired? When the first cut is made? When the device can fire a shot?
Even if we assume that no legal firearms can be built by individuals, that only licensed and regulated businesses may make them for the government, the same questions apply. How far should we go to prevent individuals (or unlicensed organizations) from building firearms? When does it become a crime? What other materials should we, the state, regulate and prohibit to prevent illicit manufacture? Tools like mills, welders, and 3D printers? Precursor materials like aluminium, plastic and steel? The plans of firearms? The ideas and math behind firearms? Information on manufacturing techniques that may be useful in creating firearms or other restricted and prohibited weapons?

*Generally, your jurisdiction may vary, check local laws. Additionally, it is still illegal for prohibited persons to build a firearm as mere possession is also prohibited for them.

Google's Selfish Ledger

Google's "Selfish Ledger"

Who Decides the Desired Results?

Seriously, *Who Decides?* Obviously such a system could simultaneously optimize for different goals. Some goals will be synergistic, some will be opposed, some will be unexpected.

For example when breeding dogs for a behavior trait, researchers found that the coats of the dogs were changing color and length and texture. If Google wants to create a Lamarckian Genetic idea of information control to change opinions and actions, there will be unexpected, unpredictable changes related and unrelated to the goals being optimized for and against.

So we have an opaque, invisible, automated system that is guiding behavior and thoughts (see Filter Bubble) at the behest of either individuals, organizations with goals or possibly the gestalt desires of all of the members of the data pool, as interpreted by the system itself. Even *IF* we have a system that is trustworthy, all of those sources are suspect and can directly lead to goals that are negative.

Organizations setting goals for this system is the scariest idea. Of course advertising would love to control our information stream to point us to their products, possibly exclusively. Governments would love to squash dissent and political parties would love to target both their supporters and their opponents with goals. Gun control groups setting the goal of lower gun ownership to reduce gun deaths. So gun shops don't show up in your results, or you get all of the gun negative articles about accidents and murders and the examples of lawful use are downvoted. That's just a small goal that could be a "social good."

Imagine how churches could use such a tool, making increased church attendance a social good? Imagine *chan-style assholes gaming the system to increase the number of people at some protest that they arrange to troll or intimidate someone. these are small, short term goals that this system could be "Rented" for, because remember, Google (Alphabet) is a business to make money. It's not going to create an AI system just to make the world a better place, it's going to have to be profitable.

Any individual will have an incomplete, prejudiced, and simply incorrect view of the world as a whole. Even expert specialists can disagree about the right path to take to solve a problem they agree on. We as a people cannot trust any individual with this power for obvious reasons.

An automatically generated gestalt of the goals of humanity is what the video implies, but the problem with that is the problem of individuals writ large. We, as individuals have prejudices and patterns that society has made invisible to us. A gestalt system will take and magnify those issues. Unless there is some hand on the control, this system would accelerate emergent trends and latent patterns. That hand would necessarily be an organization or an individual with the limitations I've already discussed.


Now, this is a "Thought Experiment" and stated to be unrelated to any existing or planned product. But we've already seen Facebook experimenting with changing people's moods. We see China rolling out a social credit game designed to move the population away from dissent and towards the goals of the nation. We know that Google and other companies are collating and categorizing data in as many databases as possible, cross-linked  and indexed on as may variables as possible.  The companies do that because they have the data and think there will be profit in it. And this video and the other similar problems show that this is a coming storm.

GunRightsAndFlatEarth

Gun Rights Supporters are the New Flat Earthers.

There is a lot of skepticism about studies about gun harms in the gun community. Studies that show to reduce gun harms what we need to do is reduce gun access significantly and that the costs in the ability to defend ourselves is marginal. Studies by groups like the CDC and the AMA are considered anti-gun propaganda, even though these groups are not chartered as anti-gun or tasked with anti-gun missions.

A lot of pro-gun arguments become dogmatic. "It's in the Constitution!" Or "Only criminals will have guns!" or "We need to be able to overthrow tyrannical governments!" or "Registration leads to confiscation!" I could spend all day listing these. While I agree that people should have access to guns for self-defense, There are good and logical counters for all of these. Possibly more importantly is that none of these are good rebuttals to the issue that real people really die (and are injured) by firearms. There is real, provable harm, and I believe there are real, provable benefits, but they are not as obvious as the harms and we need good science to be able to make good policy that minimizes the harms while maintaining the benefits.

Every time contrary evidence is supplied, the gun community generally sticks it head in the sand or shouts "Fake News!" Their support for gun rights is not informed by facts. And they fight hard to limit restrictions that could help. Restrictions that many gun owners feel are simply the cost of being gun owners. Things like safe storage and background checks on all transfers. There are things the gun community doesn't like that we can show don't have to lead to the bleak outcomes the dogmatic replies say they must.

On the other hand the people that push for gun control often create legislation that is more punitive against the gun community then it is helpful. Being charitable you could argue what they are doing is raising the barrier to firearms (and thus firearms harms) or trying to accomplish harm reduction one step at a time. But the gun control advocates also need to temper their zeal and fear and deal with the real harms and not just the sensational ones. They need to also work together and honor restrictions made as a compromise and not use them as stepping stones for total confiscation or bans.

Some good science is needed. Gun rights proponents need to listen to it. But the people proposing restrictions need to target their restrictions to the desired result. And gun people should hold them accountable for punitive laws while accepting the benign ones and discussing where the line exists between too far and too harmful.

Models, Miniatures and Wargaming

I have a history with plastic scale modelling. My father was into models, I built models as part of my interest in military aircraft and later armor and vehicles. I've never been really good at modelling but I enjoy it. It helps me understand the scale and how these things go together.  I fell out of plastic modelling when I started getting into role-playing games. I painted a couple of minis, but generally focused my time elsewhere. After my kids were born, I started to game less and less. Now it's pretty rare that I get to a game. Lately, I've been reaching back to my scale modelling as something I can do by myself to fill that hobby hole. It's nice because it not dangerous like firearms, it's fairly inexpensive, doesn't require going places and what supplies I can't order online are mostly available to craft, hobby and hardware/home improvement stores.

I like using models to tell a story. I like telling stories to justify the choices I make in models. This intertwines gaming and model-making for me. In my search for kits I have started to find interesting things in wargaming. Wargaming strikes me as a great place to find a mix of storytelling and model-making. There are some interesting challenges and trade-offs. The smaller scale means that it's harder to build and paint the models, but easier to assemble a lot of them. I can create scenes and diorama without needing huge amounts of space. I doubt that I'll engage in actual games, but I do have thoughts about the games, and this is as good as any place to talk about them.

I like WWII and modern military models and figures. Throw in some Weird War ideas and I think you have some really interesting gaming potential. I'd love to have a Airborne team versus Nazi zombies or some sort of other weird science pulpy scenarios. OTOH, I'd hate to ask someone to play Nazis, I'd really be uncomfortable with every Nazi win, I just can't separate wanting the German team to win in a wargame with wishing the Germans won the war. Which is unfortunate for a couple of reasons. You need an opponent to play against and the Nazis had some really interesting vehicles, equipment and organization. Being "Weird War" would help, but it's still rooting for Nazis.  In scale modelling I got around this by making "German" models captured and repurposed American/Allied equipment, mostly in an apocalyptic setting. I got to build interesting German vehicles and didn't have to deal with appearing like I support the Third Reich. I also got to work my storytelling around other things

The nice thing about fantasy and sci-fi settings is you get to avoid all of that historical baggage. Even if Star Wars Stormtroopers are designed to look like Nazi troops, they are fictional. Nobody has ever really died from Warhammer Chaos legions scorched earth campaigns. Weird aliens or robots that want to wipe out humanity aren't really as bad as actual genocide-supporting groups being simulated. That's not to say that these settings are free of bigotry. We can see all sorts of sexism and coded racism in everything from the outfits the female characters wear to the way that orcs are are a stand-in for so-called "less evolved" races on earth.  These are things that need to be addressed from the manufacturers down to the players. I don't have any solutions (and I do have a shelf full of Orcs waiting to be built), but I'm looking to have conversations about fixing these issues.

This has just been a rambling primer on other posts I may make on wargaming and models.

Rushed

Rush:

You can interrupt initiative and act before your turn, at a penalty. If you rush another characters turn this takes the place of your action and you can have a free, move or combat action at the penalty recorded below.

A character Rushing as a way to interrupt another character's action only gets 1 action that turn.  A character using the Rush rule can opt to take an additional action on their turn. Rushed or additional "Free" or "Move" actions that typically don't include checks now must have a average check that, if failed, fumbles your whole action. Attack or skill actions used with Rush have a -20% (-4 in d20, +2 to difficulty in White Wolf/U5D) penalty. A failed Rushed action costs the character's next turn.

This can be a existing combat rule (optional in the Universal 5 Dot concept), an ability (for GURPS), or a D20/Pathfinder Feat. Rush can be taken as a fighter's bonus feat. Characters and creatures that get multiple actions a turn can counter a rush with a parry, dodge or counterattack as an action without penalty. Rushed actions cannot benefit from modifiers about aim or concentration. Rushed actions are affected normally by weapon and envromental modifiers. In the case of multiple characters rushing on the same phase, only the first to declare their rush acts. If there is a question you can roll initiative, but rush actions should always be quick. Players should have their action immediately described, it would be fair to cancel the action (but not the penalty) for a player that slows the game with rushed actions.

Rush cannot be used with spells (see the Metamagic feat Quicken Spell). For other settings any mental or psychic special ability would also be incompatible with Rush. Physical special abilities would be compatible. A character can rush the final turn of a multi-turn non-combat action to have it activate before the turn they interrupted as long as they accept the penalty to the roll. Game Masters may also consider other limitations if Rush is used too often. Perhaps it can only be used once per encounter, or at the top of the round. If multiple characters have or can use Rush, the GM may decide that only one character can use Rush in a turn.

Notes:

NPCs generally shouldn't use Rush unless there is a compelling story reason. The GM already has many tools for adjusting NPC initiative and Rush can easily feel like a personal attack if it is used against the players. GMs should be careful when introducing Rush and should be open to applying additional penalties to prevent it's overuse. Rush was designed for high mortality short battle skirmish games, such as modern settings where a single gunshot can be fatal to even a seasoned character. However I feel that it is easily useful in most settings.

EthicalPiracy

Piracy as civil disobedience of copyright law.

The arguments about the overreach of copyright law in the US are many. But it seems to me that just because copyright is overreaching, it doesn’t meant that piracy is always acceptable. Here are my guidelines for when it may be ethical to pirate. Note, it isn’t legal to pirate, that is in the definition of the word. Like all civil disobedience it is not a defense in court, it is not a shield against criticism, and you should engage in ethical piracy if you choose to with your eyes open and aware of the consequences. Note also that this isn't really a discussion of Fair Use and transformative works. I am narrowly discussing the copying and distribution of media verbatim. Not making remixes, anime music videos or building fake trailers from assorted clips. By no means do I advocate that you engage in any illegal activity, ethical or not, and the following ideas are not an admission of piracy on my part.

Out of Print 

 It seems ethical to me to pirate copies of media that are out of print and unlikely to come back into print. This also covers items that are not licensed for a region and are unlikely to be. The rationalization is that if you cannot pay for media to the creators or rights holders, no harm is done by obtaining a copy elsewhere. Note: This doesn’t mean “Well I can’t buy the summer blockbuster because it’s not on BluRay yet, it’s ethical to pirate it!” A copy will be available in a reasonable amount of time. Cool your jets and pre-order. Also, to be most ethical one should buy a copy when it is available for sale. For example, if you pirated SimCity 2000 because it wasn’t for sale, but now it’s on GOG.com you should purchase it. Spend the money and get a legitimate copy. This creates market forces to make out-of-print games, movies etc available again.

Piracy for the sake of archiving media. 

 As the arts become more and more digital, it becomes harder to preserve copies of art for future generations. Video games especially become difficult as hardware to run the game becomes non-existent and the keys to unlock the anti-piracy protections disappear. Worse still are computer games that require a remote server login to operate and multiplayer online games that require servers to connect players. Piracy and the cracking of digital locks to enable these works of art to be studied and enjoyed by future generations is not just ethical, but noble. There is no harm in taking obsolete software and making it accessible. I feel that the primary purpose of creating art is communication, not profit. What artists want to do is make something to share with others. The profit motive is a social construct, not one inherent to art. Artists should profit from their art if they choose. But if art can no longer be experienced in a way that rewards the artist or rights holder, but is still held captive by Byzantine laws of ownership then it is ethical to distribute that art. Distributing out-of-print or inaccessible art freely should not be a crime as they are spreading the art to new audiences. If the profit margin was acceptable, the rights holder or artist would put the work back into print. Demand creates market space, but our understanding of demand is hard. Especially if the demanding group is marginalized and under-represented in the market. Piracy has shown rights holders that there is money left on the table for unobtainable art. Firefly, Family Guy and other TV and movies profited from piracy as it clearly showed the rights holders of this abandoned art that there was money to be made.

If you already own it. 

If you have purchased a media item, say a VHS cassette of Gremlins and you want to watch it on your computer. Transferring your owned media to a new format should not be a crime. This wouldn’t cover changing type of media. If you’ve bought Fight Club the book, pirating the movie would not be ethical. Ownership of a copy of the Ang Lee Hulk movie wouldn’t make it ethical to pirate the later Edward Norton movie. But scanning or downloading a digital copy of a book that you own the paper version of shouldn’t be a crime. Copyright is there to protect the artistic expression of ideas. If you have already paid for the expression in question, obtaining another copy without incurring costs onto the publisher, retailers or artists does not diminish the artistic expression. To put it another way, don't steal physical media. However, if you can buy another copy, you probably should.

If the article would have been in the public domain by the copyright laws at the time of publication.

This one requires a little research. If the media was published 52 years ago and copyright was 50 years at the time of publication, the author and rights holders had no reasonable expectation that Disney et al, would have lobbied for copyright to be extended to such a length of time. They made that art with the expectation that it would be protected by law for the period specified by the law at that time. The artists and rights holders would have assumed that they would no longer be making money from their art after the period expired. For example, the Wizard of Oz 1939 film was made when the copyright term was 28 years. Thus it should be in the public domain.

Piracy as a tool to escape censorship. 

 If a work is censored or banned in a location, it is ethical in my opinion to pirate it to learn from it and to distribute it to others who need to know about it. The ban might not even be explicit. Media with representations of LGBT+ people is hard to come by in the Bible Belt of the US. No laws say you can’t make or sell art about LGBT+ people and experiences, but you won’t find it in the library, local bookstore, Walmart or other outlet. In situations like that piracy is ethical to me. Luckily the internet is making this barrier easier to overcome. You can read books discreetly on your phone, and watch movies on demand. Much like the out of print example, when you can buy them, you should. But it seems to me that no harm is done by downloading and distributing forbidden books, movies and other media in an oppressive environment.

The Parable of Venkman and Peck

The parable of Venkman and Peck

 or

"How did we get here?" A story of the gun control issue since 2004.

Remember back to 2004 and the years following it. The Assault Weapon Ban sunsets, high capacity magazines are legally available again, Shall-Issue Concealed Carry permits are available in a growing number of states and the Heller and McDonald decisions seem to cement gun rights into law. Crime was down, things were good. Even staunch Democrats kept gun control on the back burner.

Then there was a spate mass shootings and people started thinking again about strict gun control laws. Here is where our parable starts. Gun control advocates are like Walter Peck in Ghostbusters. Concerned with the danger they are seeing, they come to the gun community/the NRA. They ask to investigate and want to understand what is happening. The NRA acts like Peter Venkman, being sly, and eventually standing on their rights to send Peck away.

A few years pass and more mass shootings happen. Now Peck comes back with the police, civilian support and a court order. Now Venkman is cooperative, trying to defuse the situation before his life and livelihood get taken away. But Peck is having none of it, wrecks the business and puts Venkman (and his friends/co-workers) in jail.

That's where we're at now. Gun culture had it's chance to talk it out and negotiate some common sense rules that might make things better. We, as gun owners, had a chance to work with the liberals and help guide the law. But instead we behaved like jackasses and said bullshit like "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." We failed to address any of their concerns in a meaningful way. Now they are having none of it and are coming for as much as they can take. I'm just hoping that this doesn't end as it did in the movie with an even larger disaster causes by those wishing to reduce harm.

BraveBrowser

So I hear about the Brave Browser as an alternative for private browsing. I'm always looking for more private browsing options, especially ones that are simple enough to recommend to more people at #EncryptEverything and on the street. And the marketing sounds good, if you pair it with DuckDuckGo. However, the word "Blockchain" sticks out to me on their site, so I keep investigating.

Brave Browser is funded by and designed around a crypto-currency called "Basic Attention Token". And you can spend these tokens on sites you visit based on how long you are on the site or you can block them or give them more if you like. And they have a one-way function that can convert other crypto-currencies (and "fiat currency" which is a red flag term for me) to BAT. There is a hole in their site where they mention that they are building an advertiser system as well that isn't ready yet. So investigating further I see the BAT site talks about "Paying" into the Brave user's wallet by experiencing ads.

Here's my problem. They build a browser that is ostensibly for privacy. And they bake in a way to pay sites without seeing advertising using traceable crypto-currency that can identify you with a profile linked to your wallet. A unidirectional wallet that you can't draw out of and can get "Paid" in by seeing advertisements. Sites will be able to track which wallets are engaging with them and how much and advertisers can do that same. If I understand the blockchain, how wallets interact with sites and ads will be public knowledge as well. So you can directly track a user's browsing habits and the ads they see. All it takes is one site matching logins to wallets and all of that "Privacy" that the browser offers comes tumbling down. And I don't see anything in their documentation that will keep sites from correlating wallets with other identifiers. If you build a browser for "Privacy" and bake in a system that can track users, you are not building a private browser.

My conclusion is that this is not a privacy forward browser. This is a company trying to cash in on the crypto-currency boom and redefining how sites get paid by viewers. Changing the advertising paradigm is a valid and logical goal, one that I'd support. Crypto-currency is a problem in several ways, many of which Charlie Stross laid out years ago. Maybe Brave could be used as a private browser with the right combination of settings, but for now I'll keep using Firefox and DuckDuckGo.

Universal Encumbrance Rules

Universal Encumbrance Rules

I've found normal encumbrance systems to be either ignored or so vague as to not help the story or the character. I wanted to create a system that helps a player develop a better feel for how their character is hauling gear, and a tool for GMs to interact with characters and their circumstances. These ideas are rooted in the ways that people carry stuff in the real world, but are not strict in their realism. 

My solution is a point system that accounts for how you are carrying your stuff. This allows for details that help solidify the character in the player's mind. It better reflects reality, where you can usually carry and move with a certain amount of stuff and if you add more things get bad, but you don't improve with you are carrying nothing. These points are the amount of gear that can be carried before penalties are assessed to Combat, Climbing, and Stealth Skills. All gear has an encumbrance point rating.

Maximum Encumbrance: 
Max. encumbrance is the total amount that can be carried by the character. It is calculated as as a combination of Strength and Endurance(...) This is the total marching weight that can be carried all day (resting 15min every 2-3hrs). I considered a system of Light, Medium or Heavy encumbrance and found it lacking. It seems to be that there is more nuance then that. You might not be carrying a lot of weight, but having a bunch of bags slung over your shoulders is going to make moving, fighting and doing active stuff difficult.

Encumbrance Locations: 

Maximum “free” points by location, However total encumbrance applies.  If you only have 4 Encumbrance pts then a full Cops belt (6pts) is going to penalize you.  Even though it doesn't exceed the 6 pt belt maximum. Only one LBE item may be worn in a location (1 helmet, 1 thigh holster, etc) with the following exceptions:

• Chest; Bandoleers can be combined with any chest LBE; Shoulder/Chest Holsters may be combined with Suspenders. 
• Back; A Buttpack may be worn with a knapsack but NOT a framepack. 
• Belt; Two (2) belts may be worn without additional penalty, a third belt means that Belt 1’s items are no longer accessible: 

Belt Locations: 
The six points of belt carry reflect the 6 major spaces that things can be carried on a belt. Front Left, Front Right, Left Hip, Right Hip, Back Left, Back Right. This rule is completely optional, but again it can help you visualize things better.

Chest Locations: 
Load Bearing Equipment, Vests and Body Armor determine chest locations. Generally the number of points is equal to the number of spaces. A Shoulder Holster has 2 points of carrying capacity, Left and Right.  Load Bearing Vests have up to 9 points arranged however you’d like. Remember that the encumbrance of armor counts against this location as well as the gear hung off the armor.

Back Location: 
While 6pts may be directly attached without additional penalty (by armor or a vest for example), Backpacks and knapsacks are special cases. A framed backpack can carry its rating in encumbrance, but only encumbers 1pt for every 5pts loaded. Knapsacks (a backpack without a frame) encumber 1pt for every 3 loaded. Encumbrance past the 6pt area max encumbers at +1 for every 20 lbs/pts (double what every other location is). The downside is that everything stored in backpacks is unavailable until the pack is removed and dug through. It generally takes 1d4 rounds to find what you want in a knapsack, 1d6 in a backpack, and 1d10 in a Large Backpack. The above rules on total encumbrance and exceeding location encumbrance apply.

Location chart:
This is a list of the locations and their maximum encumbrance capacity for humans. Not all of these slots should be filled. For larger then normal humanoids like Orcs, belts might have 8 "Slots" for stuff as opposed to 6. For Halfling or Goblin sized humanoids a belt might only carry 4 points and limbs max out at one point per limb. Giants and giant robots shouldn't use this chart as anything more then inspiration on how to carry stuff. Generally the theory is these creatures will have their encumbrance modified by their total strength and endurance enough that the variations in location maximums is less of an issue. Obviously discussion and common sense should be used to iron out any questions. (*See the Penalties section)

• Head: 1pt
• Chest:  Special*
• Back: Special*
• Belt: 6pts 
• Thigh: 3pts each 
• Calf: 1pt each 
• Forearm: 1pt each 
• Upperarm: 1pt each 
• Slung: 5pts* 
• Inhand: STRx2

Elbow pads are worn on the Upper arm, Knee pads are worn on the on the Calf. All penalties are cumulative.

Encumbrance Penalties and Notes: 

All Encumbrance penalties are cumulative.  Exceeding total encumbrance points results in a -1 to hit and a 10% penalty to active skills per 5 points exceeded. Some more specific encumbrance penalties are below.

• More than 1 Slung Item= -1/-10% difficulty per extra item. EXCEPTION: 1 Bandoleer may be (Slung) and 1 may be (Chest) w/o special penalty. 
• Clothing and LBE/Gear only encumbers when carried not when worn This applies the encumbrance of the +clothes/gear itself, NOT any attached/carried items. 
• All armor encumbers when worn and when carried. 
• Unless concealable, LBE is the always top layer. 
• Carrying a person/animal/item over your shoulders (fireman’s carry) is considered Back location and encumbers 1pt for every 5lbs. HOWEVER, at least one hand is occupied with the load. 
• Swimming: ALL Encumbrance points are counted toward the negative Swimming Modifier.
• Gymnastics: ALL Encumbrance points are counted for modifiers.
• GMs should certainly keep encumbrance in mind when characters are off balance, trying to squeeze through small spaces 

Encumbrance Notation:
Item A, 1; A standard item with unaltered encumberance
Item C, 1c; A concealable item, standard encumbrance
Item P, 1p; A pocket item, .1 lbs encumbrance, number is for pocket encumbrance (see below)

Pocket Encumbrance: 
Clothes have pockets, and keeping things in them takes no appreciable tool on your character. While carrying a gun or knife or ammo in your pocket can be encumbering, Pocket items have virtually no encumbrance, but they do take up space, filling the capacity of the pocket equal to their encumbrance. ex. Car keys, .5p, Wallet 1p. All Pocket items are Concealable. A pocket item can be attached to LBE/Gear, taking up slots but not weight. A pocket and LBE can have the same location, BUT the LBE will block the swift retrieval of the pocket item (2 actions to retrieve/draw). Belts do not block pockets.

How Fiction Handles Bigotry

I've been reading some criticism of how the media, specifically movies and TV shows, handle bigotry and racism. Generally they argue that bigotry is presented in beyond simplistic terms, that the fictional stand-ins for marginalized groups play into bigoted stereotypes and that the settings don't reflect the reality of how bigotry affects society as a whole. This video about Bright, and this article from Cracked about similar films make these assertions, and I've seen similar criticism elsewhere.

I don't disagree with any of these points. I do think that they are missing the intended audience of major media. These movies and TV shows are not meant for marginalized or socially aware audiences. They are meant to compete for cis, white male attention against media that ignores or actively argues against the existence of bigotry. Marginalized groups know the reality of bigotry better then I will ever conceive. These movies are not trying to portray their story. People who are trying to support and assist marginalized groups (Allies and Social Justice types) are well aware if the problem and are not going to be satisfied with the hamhanded way these movies portray the issues. These movies are trying to serve as a gateway to an audience that is also watching Transformers and Independence Day. They are trying to bring awareness and openmindedness in a genre not known for it and are competing against stories that actively oppose social justice ideas.

The bigotry in these movies is overt and simplistic to make it obvious to the audience. These shows and movies are not competing with contemplative dramas, they are competing with fast moving action pictures. The superhero genre, for example, doesn't have time or room for discussions about how marginalized groups are denied jobs and access in subtle, deniable ways. So X-Men doesn't do that and hits you over the head with parallels to historical bigotry. Movies like Crash and Bright have the bigoted characters be obvious bigots to make it clear to the audience in a hurry. This leaves more time for trailer-friendly action sequences that the audience is presumably more interested in. It also tries to lessen the feeling that the audience is being preached to.

Another criticism is that these movies empower the marginalized groups in ways that justify the oppression leveled against them. They argue that the X-Men are dangerous, thus the fear and hate is understandable, even logical. The critics compare this to the bigoted myths of Blacks and other minorities being beastial, stronger, tougher and quicker to violence then whites. Stopping those bigoted myths is certainly a noble goal, but their argument doesn't sit well with me. I think that the comparison is a bullshit excuse for bigotry. A person is not deserving of more or less rights based on they're strength, intelligence, endurance or other attributes. Putting that aside, the X-Men and other superpowered/supernatural characters are assigned the role of the oppressed group because the (presumed cis, white, straight male) audience is supposed to sympathize with them. The idea is to present the stand in for the marginalized group in a way the majority audience will want to overcome their differences and see things from that point of view. Often the fictional stand-ins in for marginalized people will be a new discovery by the society like the one we live in. Thus portraying the mutants etc as a conquering new race would only fan bigotry and hate.

In these stories, bigotry doesn't work like it does in the real world. And this to me is more of a narrative choice. These movies follow formulas to match viewers expectations. They compete against other movies following the same format. The heroes journey, the well trod three act structures. The fight against bigotry doesn't work in these structures. It is long, slow, tragic and mundane. Victories are won by inches in court and in public opinion over years. None of this makes a good adventure or action movie. Movies are money-making ventures. They are designed, approved and created to maximize profit. To do that they are targeted to the largest, most likely to purchase audience. The current understanding is the teen to 30s white male is that market. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as movies get more tailored and targeted at the supposed audience. I agree that the market should steer away from this to more inclusive designs that can be marketed to more people. However, I'm talking about what is, not what should be. Because these movies are made considering what was and what is, not what we thing it should be.

It seems to me that there are four main categories for social justice in mass media.

• The regressive; stories that portray marginalized groups using negative stereotypes. These stories often have a main cast of majority characters. This also includes stories that will have token characters in stereotypical "positive" roles.
• The mildly critical; this is the category we've been discussing. Stories that try to criticize bigotry while adhering to the typical story structures, classic tropes and often using blunt and inaccurate depictions to do so.
• The neutral; stories that have representation of marginalized people in ways that neither feed stereotypes nor oppose them. The Force Awakens for example, neither criticizes nor supports stereotypes and bigotry in it's casting and characterization.
• The accurate; stories like Fruitvale Station and others that strive to fight bigotry with humanization of marginalized people.

And yes, we should have more movies and stories that are neutral and accurate. And the more accurate movies get, the better everything is. But bigotry is a market force. And when you make accurate depictions of bigotry, people push back, often acting more bigoted and rejecting your narrative. The mildly critical films help open people's minds that don't consider themselves hateful, but reinforce the systemic bigotry with little actions and opinions. These stories are blunt and simple to get their point across to people who are in denial about the bigotry in our world. They are trying to make the first step of why the majority should care about what happens to marginalized groups. These stories are attempting to humanize and create sympathy and empathy, opening up the door for further growth.

I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize the issues people bring up in media like this. We certainly should try to make more media that is nuanced, truthful and realistic in it's depiction of bigotry and discrimination. We certainly should have more and better representation of marginalized groups in our media. But part of the problem is getting the majority to understand that there is a problem and to be sympathetic to the oppressed. And I think that these stories can help with that. Or at the very least, that they are trying to.