Monday, July 30, 2018

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.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

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.

Saturday, July 28, 2018

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.