From: Laughing Collie <[c--ll--e] at [netcom.com]>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Guns and Gaming (was: TSR's Revised Online Policy)
Date: 23 Apr 1996 21:29:38 GMT

Sorry I took so long to reply to this, but I prefer to have thought out
my answers carefully. ;)


> Terry Austin wrote:
>> If you don't like gun nuts, move to Japan,

> Please also note that I live in Britain, with relatively struct gun
> control laws. (Relative to the USA, that is - about average for the
> industrialised world, I think.)

Um... I'd have to disagree with that, unless places like New Zealand,
Israel, and Switzerland are considered non-industrial. All of the above
named countries are in my opinion industrialized, and all have *very*
lax gun control and very little in the way of problems with violent
crime. 

Furthermore, many of the countries in the industrialized world cannot
really be categorized as having gun "control" laws -- they have,
rather, gun "prohibition" laws.

> Keeping this vaguely game-relevant - I am trying... Could anyone clear
> up a couple of points here:
> 
> 1. I had the impression that Japan had a remarkably low crime rate,
> *especially* with regard to violent crime - although it may be, at
> least partially, that Japanese criminals and society generally are just
> better at sweeping their violence under the carpet.

A couple of facts I learned during the research of my paper: there is a
type of murder that is so common in Japan that it has only recently
been outlawed. I don't know the Japanese word for it, but the type of
murder is a father killing his wife and children and then himself.
Usually the wife is strangled and the children smothered. Since this
type of murder has only recently been made a crime, the murder
statistics don't usually reflect those people.

American anti-gun proponents for some reason generally include American
suicides in the statistics of American homicide. However, other
country's suicide rates are not included in their homicide rates when
comparing American with foreign homicide statistics. This is odd, but
more understandable if you realize that Americans (as a VERY broad
generalization which should NOT be taken as concrete fact!) tend to
turn their frustration and violence outwards, while other peoples
apparently tend to turn it inwards.  Japan has a very high suicide
rate. If you include Japan's suicide *and* murder rates, and compare
them to similar American rates, *Japan* has a higher rate of death.
This comes from the UN Demographic Yearbook of 1985, which is the
latest one I could find.

Japan does have a remarkably low crime rate. Japan is a different
country than America, with a *very* different culture. Being an
individual is not praised in Japan, and an adherence to ritual and order
is considered noteworthy. This is not the situation in America. Thus I'd
have to say that while inter-country comparisons might be interesting,
or give us food for thought, they should never be used to "prove" that
either side on the gun control debate is ultimately right. Cultures just
don't compare that way very well.

> 2. I know that every household in Switzerland is obliged to own a gun;
> how often do the Swiss carry such things out of the house? As someone
> said, these are surely mostly military rifles, and you certainly don't
> see everyone in a street scene from that country toting a long arm. Is
> it even *legal* to carry guns round in public for no specific purpose?
> And even if it is, technically, wouldn't all those famously conformist
> Swiss cops be, ahem, questioning you the moment they saw you? (I know
> that the Swiss crime rate is pretty low, but as with Japan, isn't this
> simply down to - whisper it - cultural factors as much as anything?)

My sister lives in Switzerland. She's never mentioned guns there as
being brandished on the street, or being afraid of them or anything
similar. As far as I know, these guns can be carried legally, and are
so much considered a tool that they usually don't merit a second
glance. Indeed, I read an article where an American in Switzerland
during the country-wide testing for marksmanship was quite taken aback
to suddenly realize that the motorcycles zipping past him on the
highways with cheerily waving men and women on them were carrying
*automatic weapons* in those pretty tooled carriers fastened to the
'cycle's sides!

According to my sister (yes, it's anecdotal, sorry ;) the Swiss also
are sticklers for rules and ritual, like the Japanese. I imagine the
Swiss cops would come down on you pretty quickly if you were acting
like an idiot with a gun. However, I believe the determinant isn't
whether you're carrying a gun or not -- it is all in how you act. Hell,
American cops get on your case if you're tossing rolls of toilet paper
around and creating a public nuisance of yourself -- but quietly
carrying rolls of toilet paper is certainly not going to get you in
trouble. Okay, so that last example was a little flippant... ;)

Now to keep this related to gaming. There are a few studies I've read
that contained interesting theoretical results of various forms of gun
control/gun prohibition. All of these studies are (of course) still
being examined... but that doesn't mean I can't extrapolate on them to
make interesting cultures and NPCs! ;)

Firstly, there's the issue of law. If I wanted to surprise the PCs in a
game, I might have a culture where there are no limits on the types of
weaponry people are allowed to carry. However, as soon as any of the
(usually heavily armed) PCs tried to throw their weight around, they'd
quickly find out that the civilians are not just armed, but are quite
insistent on the rights of the individual to not be abused. Libertarian
land, if you like. ;)

Then there's variants on that theme. How about a world where *all* the
guns are outlawed unless you have a permit for them -- but diligent
searching reveals no available paperwork, and thus it is impossible to
register your weapons? This is the case in Chicago for handguns. How
would the PCs handle that?

Or the situation we have here now, exaggerated slightly -- a religious
war over whether the masses should or should not be able to carry
weapons! ;)

Or the situation in New York -- NO HANDGUNS!!! ...unless you're
connected to the right political heavy, or have enough money, or
something similar.

I live in Sunnyvale, CA. Here, in order to just *apply* for a concealed
carry permit, one has to pay for and pass a physical and a mental
health checkup, be fingerprinted *5* times, be photo'd twice, pay $40
for the application fee and another $60 if it's granted, demonstrate
"good moral character" (the cop I spoke to had no idea how that was
done, btw! ;), show proof of insurance for one *million* dollars of
personal liability, authorise and pay for a background check,
demonstrate that you were in *immediate* danger (self-defense isn't
enough, apparently), demonstrate proficiency with the weapon, and give
two medical releases (the cop didn't know why one would not be
sufficient ;). All this... and at any time the Chief of Public Safety
can just change the rules if desired. If you *ever* wanted to tie up
your PCs for just a *little* bit longer, there's *nothing* like red
tape! ;)

Okay, so enough of that. ;) How about studies that demonstrate the gun
"haves" and "have-nots"? Those also have interesting results, and could
be used to help give form to a society. For example, in a society where
some of the people are unarmed and some aren't, the usual result is a
lack of concern for human life to some degree. Mexico springs to mind,
although I know it is a generalization. There will also probably be a
high suicide rate amongst the "lower" (read unarmed) class, and crime
will be of a different sort amongst them -- more confidence games,
"white-collar" crime... robberies would be more open and more violent,
since a burglar has nothing to fear from an interupting householder --
just beat them up! 

Lower class women will probably be considered chattel to some degree,
as they are not usually as physically strong as men and are not allowed
to defend themselves with a gun. Guns are the great equalizer, in a way
-- they might become symbols of status, jealously guarded and
prohibited to the lower classes. The black market would be wide
ranging, ruthless, and *very* powerful -- after all, *they've* got the
weapons the lower classes don't! As long as the mafia equivalent
doesn't piss off the "nobility", they'd pretty much run rampant through
the lower classes -- no one could stop them. It might be interesting if
the PCs tried to eliminate such a mafia equivalent, and discovered a
"noble" was sponsoring it as a money making scheme and slow way to get
the lower classes to kill each other off.

What else... there would be a sense among the "nobility" that they were
in some way more worthy, more valuable than the unarmed. This might be
reflected in the religion, and could vary from little sneers from the
haves towards the have-nots (e.g. the way women are sometimes viewed by
men in society today) to outright slavery. A hierarchy of nobility
based on the gun, if you will.

This might be interesting for several reasons. What class would the PCs
fall into -- or be automatically categorized as? What would happen if
the PCs decided to "liberate" the have-nots? What if the PCs were of a
slightly higher technical capability than the haves, and the haves
wished the PCs to join them, showering the PCs with all kinds of
wonderful gifts -- riches, beautiful clothing, works of art, slaves...
Moral dilemmas fascinate me. I'd try to set something like that up for
my PCs, were I GMing.

Hope this helps some! ;)


--Collie