Is it unwise to have NPC police officers with Pacifism?

[HANS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I say it is that firing at other humans is harder than firing at paper targets for most people.

Absolutely, that is one of the problems. In my book, Pacifism (Reluctant Killer or Self-Defense Only) is a common disadvantage of ordinary people, including ordinary police officers. Another is that people typically don't stand still (an aspect of Dodge).

Originally Posted by Icelander

Aim is not useless in GURPS rules terms. It adds Acc to the shooter's effective skill. As such, the logical thing to do is interpret the Aim maneuver as anything that takes approximately a second and improves the odds of the shooter hitting.

No. This is "sighted shooting" and, per Tactical Shooting, modelled as All-Out Attack (Determined).

The problem with Aim is that it takes one second. People in (police) gunfights rarely take that time, and as I have outlined above, they usually don't have it, either, even if they wanted to.

Cheers

HANS

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

AoA: Determined is sighted shooting where you can move at a fast clip of 2-3 meters per second while you shoot and you don't pause between shots or before you start shooting.

Which models combat glides very well, IME.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Which models combat glides very well, IME.

That is true.

But firing during combat glides is less accurate than firing while kneeling, from cover. This is because in cover, people feel confident enough to Aim.

[HANS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

But firing during combat glides is less accurate than firing while kneeling, from cover. This is because in cover, people feel confident enough to Aim.

Most police shootings do not involve cover for any of the parties . . .

Cheers

HANS

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by HANS

No. This is "sighted shooting" and, per Tactical Shooting, modelled as All-Out Attack (Determined).

Only if the shooter fires immediately upon detecting a threat and/or readying his weapon. If he draws his weapon and then spends some time assuming a proper firing position, what was he doing during that 0.5-1 second if not Aiming?

It took approximately a second, during which he was not firing, and it significantly improved his odds of hitting. Walks like, quacks like.

Originally Posted by HANS

The problem with Aim is that it takes one second. People in gunfights rarely take that time, and as I have outlined above, they usually don't have it, either, even if they wanted to.

The way GURPS rules work, those who are not experts* or world-class masters will generally see effects from their fire sooner if they Aim and then Attack than if they just Attack.

If you only hit on a critical success, shooting is mostly a waste of time. Aiming is not.

Whether or not it adequately models reality to have Aim give bonuses to hit, instead of just negating distance penalties is another issue. But as it is, even at very short ranges, character with normal, realistic skill levels almost always benefit from Aiming.

Soldiers, of course, shoot mostly to suppress the other side and they carry enough ammo to be able to afford not Aiming all the time. But cops should at least try to avoid spraying shots everywhere without much of a chance to hit anyone but innocent bystanders.

As noted earlier, the skill penalties they'll suffer from Disadvantages make this more of an ideal than the reality. But still, cops do hit more often than soldiers. This is, I believe, not because they are better shots, but because they fire more often after using Aim.

*Given a -3 penalty for range and -3 for visibility, a typical cop with skill 11 will hit on 5- if he lacks Reluctant Killer, 1- if he has it. Two seconds of firing will yield far fewer hits than a second of Aim and a second of firing.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by HANS

Most police shootings do not involve cover for any of the parties . . .

Cheers

HANS

Are you sure that this holds true when going by rounds fired, not number of incidents?

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Soldiers, of course, shoot mostly to suppress the other side and they carry enough ammo to be able to afford not Aiming all the time.

No, we don't.

Suppresive fire is an option, not the standard.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Apache

No, we don't.

Suppresive fire is an option, not the standard.

This is why it takes 250,000 bullets per enemy combatant casualty?

[HANS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Only if the shooter fires immediately upon detecting a threat and/or readying his weapon. If he draws his weapon and then spends some time assuming a proper firing position, what was he doing during that 0.5-1 second if not Aiming?

Looking at the perp. You can't look at the target and look at the sights, let alone Aim. The human eyes are incapable of doing that.

Originally Posted by Icelander

The way GURPS rules work, those who are not experts* or world-class masters will generally see effects from their fire sooner if they Aim and then Attack than if they just Attack.

Sure, but that's the difference between sitting at a gaming table and real life. Just because Aim gives you an advantage doesn't mean that the average police officer even has that option when the **** hits the fan. You're projecting game mechanics on real life, while you should do it the other way round.

Originally Posted by Icelander

But cops should at least try to avoid spraying shots everywhere without much of a chance to hit anyone but innocent bystandards.

Whether they should do that is not the point. The fact is that they don't, for all the reasons I already cited.

Originally Posted by Icelander

But still, cops do hit more often than soldiers.

What makes you believe that? I'm pretty certain that the average professional soldier is a much better shot than the average police officer.

Originally Posted by Icelander

This is, I believe, not because they are better shots, but because they fire more often after using Aim.

Meaning you have absolutely no source to back that up?

Cheers

HANS

[HANS]

Originally Posted by Icelander

This is why it takes 250,000 bullets per enemy combatant casualty?

I'm not sure that figure is still accurate for modern warfare, as I believe it dates to the Vietnam War. However, most of that figure comes from miniguns and machine guns giving suppressive fire. That has absolutely no connection with how individual grunts use their weapons.

Cheers

HANS