ScottishFox

That is some Order of the Stick level situation there...
*Chuckles*
 

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.
 
Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.
 
So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:
 
You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  
 
You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

I think that the reliability of Rotten Tomatoes has suffered in recent years by people pushing or attacking something merely based on politics.  Now you don't get an honest quality read, you get some kind of "does this enhance my narrative or not" judgment all too often.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hong-kong-airport-reopens-after-overnight-clashes-mass-protests/ar-AAFLnfJ?li=BBnbfcN
 
Major respect to the protesters. They are..incredibly brave.
 
I worry for them.

Hmmm, looking at the UI what I could do to save some space is hide the Base and Cost fields until the plus button is pressed.  I don't think people generally need to know that info at a glance so there's really no need to clutter the main display with it.

The most reasonable limitation, imo, is to cap the individual off at the level of infantryman.  That is the role that fighting age men served in the militia and each guy was expected to have a firearm and personal weapons (knife, cutlass, hatchet, whatever).
 
You can't time period bind the equipment any more than you could say freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet, telephones or any other medium that wasn't invented at the time of the founding.
Would you limit the 4th amendment in this way?  Well, see, they didn't have thermal imaging that would let us watch you through the walls of your house day & night without a warrant back then so your constitutional protections don't extend to this new technology...
 
So I would say a semi-automatic rifle, sidearm and some sort of melee weapon should be fine.  Howitzers, drone mounted missiles, etc., would not.

As a former soldier, I know the differences between a weapon and armor.
 
 
A shield isn't a weapon at all, though it has some offensive use.
 
 
This makes me think you think I said a gun was a defensive weapon. Guns are simply weapons. Weapons are things intended to inflict harm. The whys and the justifications for inflicting that harm aren't related to the design of the object. If the primary function of a thing is to inflict trauma on living tissue, it's a weapon. There's no need to label it as offensive or defensive. Some people may own weapons primarily to use in self defense situations, but that doesn't change the nature of the weapon.
 
Edit: Although I don't like using dictionaries to make a point, in this case the dictionary agrees with me, so I'll use it to make my point (search result for a define:weapon google search):
 
weap·on
/ˈwepən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
"nuclear weapons"
a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.
"resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory"
 
shield
/SHēld/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: shield; plural noun: shields
1.
a broad piece of metal or another suitable material, held by straps or a handle attached on one side, used as a protection against blows or missiles.
 
Edit: Aside from the shield bit, I don't really disagree with you here. I'm just thinking that didn't come through in my prior response. Probably the lack of sleep thing.
 
 

This is inaccurate as written. Restricting individual access to firearms is an established and effective deterrent to suicide, it's one of the reasons for the legal standards around firearm access in 5150 code. If you are indicating that suicide rates are not affected by availability of firearms in society, which I gather by the context of the rest of this, that's entirely possible. I don't have expertise in that area. 
 
I found your list of reasoning around your position thoughtful and articulate, and while I do not reach the same conclusions ("rational minds may differ") I appreciate your explanation. 

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:
 
1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.
2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.
3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.
5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.
6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 
7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.
8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.
9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.
10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.
10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.
10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.
10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.
 
Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.
 
Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.
 
Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.
 
So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.
 
Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.
 
The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.
 
In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.
 
Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?
 
Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?
 
In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.
 
Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.

These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.
 
So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.
 
So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.
 
I hope this answers your question.
 
EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

Here's a preview of the apps new look and feel... the screenshot quality is OK, it's a little sharper and has a bit more contrast in person.
 

Look, when I play with my little green army men they mostly only have rifles.  You can't use the fancy bazooka guy as your standard!

Look, when I play with my little green army men they mostly only have rifles.  You can't use the fancy bazooka guy as your standard!

I don't think so. I think if we had a big button that made all guns vanish from the Earth instantly, we would still have the same underlying issues with violence. You'd simply be trading the lives of the people who could have defended themselves vs. superior force for the lives of the school shooting victims, no matter how the numbers fell out. Seems like a bad deal for someone.
 

Nostalgia, it's the best drug because it's free.
CES 

And how many gun homicides are committed "in the heat of the moment," vs. say, for economic reasons? I figure there are a couple of major reasons for homicides, and the biggest two categories are personal vs. economic. Catch your wife cheating on you with the pool boy and kill them in reprisal? Personal. Shoot into a crowd of rival gang members in the parking lot of a corner store because they're impinging on your turf? Economic.
 
It'd be interesting to actually analyze this type of stuff and break down causes into workable categories that can be dealt with. I don't know if any stats for this are already available. My gut and personal experience/training tells me that economically-motivated homicides should outweigh the personal by a wide margin. People simply aren't wired to kill. Those who are in groups who routinely kill are always trained or indoctrinated in some way, whether we're talking gangs, military or cult. Most normal people who become pissed off will stop far short of murder, gun or no gun.

Why do people keep looking for one problem?
 
 
Why do we keep moving from mass shootings to general homicide rates? (Which, as you know, have been trending downward for years.)
 
I'm not even going to attempt to answer this post. You're an educated man. You should already know the answer you're looking for, especially given your profession. So, I think you're mind's made up and any answer I give will just lead to needless back and forth. I like you, as I do everyone  here, so I don't want to get into any kind of bickering with you. I will, however, direct you to that last article I linked, which was found in that long post from csyphrett above.
 
You've read my prior posts on these subjects. You know that I'm open to looking at guns, but you also know that I expect a LOT of other issues be addressed, and the effects assessed before I'm up for impinging too strongly on a fundamental right.

A gun is a tool. It's the means like old man said. The problem is the motive. Until motives can be verified before people do things, it doesn't matter what the tool is. A semifamous case here in Clemmons is a woman got fed up with her husband telling her to stop spending money on horses. Something I could relate to at the time. She went after him with a harpoon/spear he had got somewhere and had laying around. There's been two or three cases where a man shot his wife and then himself I'm going to say in the last five-ten years maybe and we're a one horse town so it's not like there's a murder every week.
 
If a person doesn't have a gun, they will use something else. BTM used cookies.
 
A gun just makes things easier.
 
Until someone figures out why people act like they do, and how to solve that so they can deal with modern life, murder and suicide is always going to look better than trying to walk it off and trying to start over.
CES      

Depends on the goal.  Is it to eliminate senseless death and misery?  Then are many other things to choose from that cause vastly more deaths. 
Also, the original discussion was mass shootings which is a very, very tiny percentage of gun homicides which are in turn dwarfed by gun suicides.
 
If the goal is take a tiny sliver of a problem and use it for political gains then ineffective gun bans on scary looking weapons are going to be the trick.
 
Meanwhile we're discussing this tiny percent of a percent of a problem while ignoring massive killers in this country.  In the 10 to 44 age range suicide beats homicide and cancer both.
 
Also, the gun ownership lever.  Regardless of how you feel about guns it's not a straightforward correlation.  Nor does it address most of the driving issues that may be contributing to our abnormally high gun homicide rate.
Such as abject poverty, unchecked gang violence and a completely failed war on drugs that seems to be incredibly focused and unmitigated in the neighborhoods that need help the most.
 
One chart I've lost track of shows that some neighborhoods have 26% of the countries gun homicides and only 1.5% of the population.  How is that not drawing additional policing?
 
As a final note I'll say how relatively disgusted I was looking up the charts.  Pages that tilt to one side or the other chop their dates off at the most beneficial point for making an argument instead of stating facts.  Right-leaning pages cut off at 2013 while left leaning pages start at 2014.  Why?  Because gun violence stops going down at 2014 and spikes up considerably.  If you want to win an argument more than tell the truth editing statistics is your play. 
 

Depends on the goal.  Is it to eliminate senseless death and misery?  Then are many other things to choose from that cause vastly more deaths. 
Also, the original discussion was mass shootings which is a very, very tiny percentage of gun homicides which are in turn dwarfed by gun suicides.
 
If the goal is take a tiny sliver of a problem and use it for political gains then ineffective gun bans on scary looking weapons are going to be the trick.
 
Meanwhile we're discussing this tiny percent of a percent of a problem while ignoring massive killers in this country.  In the 10 to 44 age range suicide beats homicide and cancer both.
 
Also, the gun ownership lever.  Regardless of how you feel about guns it's not a straightforward correlation.  Nor does it address most of the driving issues that may be contributing to our abnormally high gun homicide rate.
Such as abject poverty, unchecked gang violence and a completely failed war on drugs that seems to be incredibly focused and unmitigated in the neighborhoods that need help the most.
 
One chart I've lost track of shows that some neighborhoods have 26% of the countries gun homicides and only 1.5% of the population.  How is that not drawing additional policing?
 
As a final note I'll say how relatively disgusted I was looking up the charts.  Pages that tilt to one side or the other chop their dates off at the most beneficial point for making an argument instead of stating facts.  Right-leaning pages cut off at 2013 while left leaning pages start at 2014.  Why?  Because gun violence stops going down at 2014 and spikes up considerably.  If you want to win an argument more than tell the truth editing statistics is your play. 
 

Alas, it's not up to me.
 
 

One item that might be fun that I am completely stealing from Pathfinder:  Greensight.
 
Basically, X-ray vision only to see through plants.  Allows the ranger to navigate clearly and spot prey & enemies trying to hide behind trees or in dense foliage.

One item that might be fun that I am completely stealing from Pathfinder:  Greensight.
 
Basically, X-ray vision only to see through plants.  Allows the ranger to navigate clearly and spot prey & enemies trying to hide behind trees or in dense foliage.

That strikes me as an oversight.  It's certainly not an explicit statement that Inobvious powers become Perceptible when bought through a Focus, a claim I can't find anywhere in the books.  If that's the case, then Obvious should be worth a greater limitation when applied to Inobvious powers.
 
Also, your theory has a significant problem in that it means Steve Long doesn't know how to write up Champions characters.  Look at all these completely useless powers taken from the published books:
Cornelius Liefield's Invisibility Potion: Invisibility to Sight and Mystical Sense Groups, Trigger (open or smash bottle; +¼), Usable By Other (+¼); OAF Fragile (potion and bottle; -1¼), 2 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Minute each (stopped by striking user with a magical attack; -¾). Total Cost: 15 points. Eclipse's Shadow Stealth: Invisibility to Sight Group, No Fringe 0 Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½); OIF (Shadow Crown, -½), Only In Darkness/Shadows (-¼) Total cost: 26 points. Ultrasonique's Stealth Enhancer: Invisibility to Hearing Group; OIF (-½). Total cost: 7 points. Utility's Cloaking Mesh: Invisibility to Sight Group, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½); OIF (-½). Total cost: 20 points. If you're correct, then buying Invisibility through an Obvious Focus is self-defeating, because "opponents know where the power comes from and can attempt to disable the Focus or take it away."  Which apparently means that if you look at Utility while he's using his cloaking mesh, you can -- without making a Perception roll -- know where he is and target him with attacks.  What an incredible waste of 20 points.  How silly of Steve to write it up like that.

I find few politicians possess an understanding of the impact of their tax plans which goes deeper than a soundbite.  A problem not limited to tax, or even financial, issues.

If you end up making that kind of argument, you've already lost.