That's a good analogy, Nikolaj. Of course, some people do run red lights, sometimes just because they think they can get away with it. But yes, the idea here is that the social contract of this society says that when you're hit with a paintball you play dead, and people would no more ignore that than they would--well, I was going to say "urinate on a city street", but I understand people do that, too.
--M. J. Young
no more than they would purposefully urinate on themselves while completely sober. That's much less likely than doing so on the street, if you ask me.
I really like this idea. I follow a strong code of honor myself, particularly in relation to honesty. I think I could get to like that world, and in John's iteration, would work to preserve the system, rather than let it be destroyed. In other words, I'd "Play By Da Rulez".
Ya know, I had a thought. What if the paintballs WERE lethal at some point? Maybe they were poisonous or the people weren't strong enough to take a hit from a paintball, and it had the same effect as a bullet. After a while, the people developed the necessary bod skills that it didn't kill them anymore, or the police stopped using poisoned paintballs. However, the people still went down when shot. That could be how it got into their culture to begin with. The people don't want the police to go back to poisoned ammo or something.
(Doing Therapy)
Maybe not poisonous paintballs, but a tradition of blowgun darts? Maybe compressed-air weapons developed in their culture to replace blowguns, rather like the crossbow and then the rifle replacing the longbow in ours?
I think it's really a more a question of what is acceptable on society's terms and what isn't. All crimes are against the law by nature, but some crimes are also taboo enough that when a person is arrested for them, they could be killed while they're incarcerated. In our world, someone who urinates on the street and then fails to pay their fines will be laughed at, someone who kills another person will be feared and respected, and someone who is arrested for a sexually based crime possibly won't see the light of day again. I would propose a shift in this world to where an individual who kills ignites society to the degree that the vast majority of people have no mercy for the person who has broken the honor code in that regard.
I prefer the idea of firearms existing and being relatively attainable for the purpose of hunting, but it being taboo to use them against people over the idea of firearms never being invented -- I think it isn't the letter but the spirit of the idea that matters most. I would even like to see it go a step further, from anyone who uses an explosive-driven slug thrower instead of a paintball gun is in deep trouble to anyone who purposefully kills another person with intent is going to have to deal with not only the national authorities of the world mobilizing to neutralize the threat but also the great majority of the populace trying to kill them in lynch mobs and the sort.
How about this idea... you kill someone without knowing the laws of the world, and you're later captured. You're put on trial, and although you try to explain that you didn't realize that the criminal didn't have a real gun, there's no precedent for this kind of defense since it's common knowledge that no one intends to kill another person. Thus, it is the order of the court that you're ... what? Executed? I prefer the idea of enslaving the verser, or forcing them to act as a gladiator in a government-sanctioned event. A world which detests violence to the degree that they outlaw killing people would probably pay a lot of money to watch violent events, especially if they're watching killers kill each other.
I've probably gotten off topic, but I still think that killing in this world should be the highest level of taboo and ignite such hatred that the murderer should stand little or no chance of getting away with it. I would even go so far as to try to come up with a way, magical, psionic, or techonological by which all people are supervised and marked if they kill another person with intent. That could even make for a good plot, if someone were to act against the law and the law were to dub them a "killer" and mark them in order to have them eliminated.
Ky
Well, we've got a lot of good ideas for multiple world settings. I still like the idea of guns never having been invented, or as I said, hidden very deeply. I think they could all make really good worlds. I still think I'd like to be the unstoppable criminal with the superweapon though. (Laughing)
(Doing Therapy)
Kyler's point about not executing the killer is well taken: if killing is that taboo, there won't be exceptions.
There would be a category of "accidental killings". One of the problems is the "self defense" and "defense of third persons" defenses, because everyone knows that no one would really kill anyone, so killing someone to prevent that person from killing someone is not merely ironic, it's inconceivable. But then you have situations in which something less than death is at stake--torture, severe intentional battery, rape, arson, robbery with violence. If the victim or bystander doesn't have access to a paintball gun but instead grabs whatever is handy to fend off an attack (kitchen knife, for example), and the defense proves fatal to the attacker, there would still be culpability at play here--it would be wrong to allow a killing that was not to prevent a killing, because the gap between homicide and any other crime is so great that nothing else could justify it, save that it was entirely accidental. Even the standard manslaughter conditions (a reasonable person would have acted unreasonably under this circumstance) would not normally apply, because anyone who had so completely lost control that they killed someone in a fit of emotion is clearly dangerous and sociopathic.
But by the same token, the gladiator solution would also be rejected: it would be wrong to sanction killing.
I also see a thriving market of approved over-the-counter mood stabilizers in this world: if you have so much trouble coping that you are tempted toward violence, take this pill to calm yourself.
That leaves the punishment unclear, though. Imprisonment of some sort seems in order, probably connected with doing something for the benefit of society (chain gangs, perhaps?), but whether there's a better answer I'm not sure.
--M. J. Young
I also see a thriving market of approved over-the-counter mood stabilizers in this world: if you have so much trouble coping that you are tempted toward violence, take this pill to calm yourself.
MJ, speaking as someone who has been on a multitude of mood stabilizers, I can say with certainty that this is BAR NONE the most uninformed statement I've ever seen you make. The first one I was on didn't calm me down, it tripled my violent behaviors. (Changed my reputation at school really quick too) I still think that if you want an HONOR BASED SYSTEM (emphasizing, not yelling) then guns can't exist at all.
I believe that Mr. Young is referring to the mood stabilizers like in the novel, Brave New World.
These mood stabilizers would work.
So you would have a society entirely composed of zombie freaks with paintball guns. Aren't we already working on a zombie world?
I've been on anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, uppers, downers, lefters and righters. Either they worked for a little while and stopped, didn't work at all, or the side effects were worse than the psychosis. The last one I was on increased my paranoia exponentially, and I didn't even realize it until after I stopped taking the thing. Needless to say, I'm kind of against such medications.
John, I've had similar experiences with medications, and the answer is usually that they are treating the wrong cause. That is, it's pretty well established that depression results from low brain cell growth rates, and that anti-depressives increase neural cell growth--but bipolar depression is entirely different, and drugs which effectively treat depression cause bipolar patients to become angry and aggressive. It is so common an effect that it's become one of the clinical tests for whether you are bipolar: do anti-depressives make you aggressive? On the other hand, there are already OTC mood stabilizing agents (mostly herbal) which are very good for people who do not suffer from specific problems--most of them sold as tea, I would wager.
*****
I received an e-mail from a regular lurker who commented on this thread. I'm quoting the relevant portion, because I found it fascinating:On the paintball world: It seems to me that your latest post (about self-defense against non-murderous crimes) actually addresses your earlier concern about where criminals are getting the paintballs. If everyone respects paintball rules and using any other weapon is dangerous, then ordinary citizens have good reason to buy paintball guns and keep them on hand. Not everyone will buy guns even then (I’d imagine it varies depending on the local culture, as with guns in our world), but enough will to keep gun stores in business, and there’s enough reason for ordinary citizens to want guns that buying one won’t mark someone as a criminal (so to speak). There probably won’t be any restrictions on buying guns, either, because that would tempt people to use other things as weapons.
Similarly, I don’t see it as problematic that many crimes in our world are committed with weapons other than guns; of the crimes for which paintball rules are relevant (robberies; maybe some random assaults or crimes of personal hatred, so long as eliminating the victim isn’t necessary), most of the reasons not to use a gun aren’t present in this world. That said, a small paintbrush could make a good knife substitute for someone who could keep the paint wet, perhaps by sheathing it in a small paint container.
To some degree, the range of punishments in this world is getting compressed – the punishment for a murderer who is captured alive must be greater than for anyone else but still less than death, many crimes must be punished more severely if the victim is paintballed first, and the punishment for random paintballing must be high enough to discourage abuse of the system but low enough to make paintballs the best option for crimes. I suspect this means that relatively minor violent crimes (threatening someone with a paintball which is never actually fired) are punished less harshly than similar crimes with real guns, or even real fists, would be in our world.
Thanks for posting this idea; it’s been a lot of fun thinking about it.
I really like the paintbrush=dagger idea, and the fact that paintballs are used as self defense weapons makes them readily available without attaching suspicion to the purchasers.
--M. J. Young
-but bipolar depression is entirely different, and drugs which effectively treat depression cause bipolar patients to become angry and aggressive.
Yeah, that's why we have otherwise docile people shooting up their schools when they get on anti-depressants. First one I was on was Prozac. Made me violent as hell. I tried to use pepper spray on my best friend because he wouldn't give me a drink of his pop. A guy at school said something to me, normally I would have blown it off. I dropped my books, punched him in the chest, and said "LET'S GO!!" I'm not sure who was more surprised by that, him or me. (Like I said, it changed my reputation at school REALLY QUICK!!)
MJ, I MUST reiterate, I think the existence and use of real guns defeats the entire purpose you're going for here. I see this as a very civilized, peaceful loving world. A world the hippies would love. Then the verser drops in. This would be an awesome world for your gun nut versers like me.
I don't know, John. How many defenseless people can you kill without repercussion before it just gets boring?
--M. J. Young
That's only one possible way it could go. In that event, it would be a GE roll on how quickly the indigs develop the means to stop you. In the meantime, you are the terror of the planet. If you've got a gun nut hero verser, drop Bob Thomas in and let the verser engage him. In my head, it sounds like a really fun world, and I'm not sure I can explain it to you any better.
The violent outsider who arrives in a pacifist world, and after a few minor altercations understands his new world, and grows to love it, thus showing that the gun nut is not really a nut....and then he has to take up his old tools to deal with the Real Bad Man is a story that's been told before.
Hey, the very first WAW was about this. T arrives in a world of radiating empaths, and then one of the few nulls goes on a rampage and T is the best defense.
Its a superhero story.
The violent outsider who arrives in a pacifist world, and after a few minor altercations understands his new world, and grows to love it, thus showing that the gun nut is not really a nut....and then he has to take up his old tools to deal with the Real Bad Man is a story that's been told before.
And so has the story of the Damsels in Distress (Dancing Princess) Doesn't stop you from running it though, right?
Of course not, John. I'm actually defending you. The notion that a story has been used before multiple times is the best proof that it can be used again. Any story that has NOT been used before is going to be so bizarre that humans can't understand it.
I don't know, John. How many defenseless people can you kill without repercussion before it just gets boring?
Bob Thomas doesn't seem to have a problem with getting bored.....
Two
Cross posted with Eric. Sorry, I misunderstood you. I can't think of anything new to add to the discussion that I haven't already said, but it really sounds like this could be an awesome world idea. Haven't you secretly dreamed of being the unstoppable criminal with the superweapon? It has tons of potential.
Three
MJ, you should watch Demolition Man if you haven't seen it. I see this future world as that kind of place. The only place where you could even look at a gun was in a museum. The last recorded murder had taken place 22 years ago. The police carried stun batons, an act of graffiti was considered a crime worthy of notifying all police cruisers and even using foul language would cause a police response!!! The emergency police line was answered "Greetings and salutations. Welcome to the emergency line of the San Angeles police department. If you prefer an automated response, press one now." And that was the EMERGENCY line!!!!! Wesley Snipes is in suspended animation in prison, and escapes. He kills 3 people in his escape, and the police can't even identify the 187 code for Murder Death Kill. Sylvester Stallone is a cop, and is also in suspended animation prison, and is released to do battle with Wesley Snipes. I imagine this world being very much like that, except there are NO GUNS anywhere to be found. In fact, 99.999999% of the population never even heard of them. Your verser arrives. Does he become Wesley Snipes or Sylvester Stallone?
I think this would be an awesome world for a gun nut verser. The verser somehow inspires a criminal to build a gun. Does the verser engage the criminal or join forces with him? If it were me, the first time I got shot with a paintball gun, the guy that shot me would probably be dodging bullets. The medical team would be baffled. They've never seen injuries like this before. A tiny piece of lead entered the victim's body. How did that happen? Where did it come from? How did it get there? The police would be stunned, the world would be in shock. The Honor System has kept this world together for so frigging long that they don't know what to do. Seriously, watch Demolition Man, and imagine the cops with paintball guns instead of stun batons. I think this has the potential to be the "perfect" world you're always looking for for my character.
I had various players who wanted to be unstoppable, but I largely found it boring for me as the GM. Of course, you're not really unstoppable.
As to Bob, he has a goal...freedom. He's like the man chipping away at a stone wall with a spoon, or so he thinks.
I had various players who wanted to be unstoppable, but I largely found it boring for me as the GM. Of course, you're not really unstoppable.
This is true, but if I have an AK-47, and all the cops have paintball guns, I'm probably going to win most of the fights. I could see it though. This world would be so opposed to violence there would be people protesting developing weapons to fight the verser. When they finally do develop the weapons, the verser STILL has the advantage because the cops would have (at best) 1@3 skill. It might last 6 months or it might last 6 years, but eventually the indigs would defeat the verser.
As to Bob, he has a goal...freedom. He's like the man chipping away at a stone wall with a spoon, or so he thinks.
He sounds like the kind of guy I wouldn't mind getting to know. He won't kill versers because he sees them as alive. I wonder what he is going to do when he finds out he's been killing real people for centuries.
If you were to drop me and Bob Thomas together into this world, I wouldn't engage him, I'd probably be fighting side by side with him.
Two
The thing is, no matter how much ammo the verser has, he WILL run out sooner or later. That's why I suggested a criminal building guns. A way to replenish you ammo supply if you should decide to take that route. I just think it could be really cool.
I have seen Demolition Man, and agree that it has similarities to this idea. That's encouraging, because as Eric says it means it could work.
Your point about running out of ammo is also significant, because if they don't have any guns on this world the first ones they are going to build will be muskets (actually, they'll start with mortars and develop them into cannons, and then shrink them to muskets, and then discover rifling, which will enable them to make accurate pistols, and we're still using mostly muzzle-loaded weapons until we figure out how to make breach-loads, probably first with the larger guns and working our way down to the smaller ones, and then finally figuring out how to pack the ball with the powder and the primer in a single unit--the modern bullet). So you're not going to be able to replenish ammo for quite a long time, and when they do start making bullets, they're going to create calibers as arbitrarily as we did. (Tell me that there's nothing arbitrary about standard bullets being .22", .38", .45", and 9mm.)
--M. J. Young
Your point about running out of ammo is also significant, because if they don't have any guns on this world the first ones they are going to build will be muskets
Not necessarily. The reason muskets were developed first was because Mercury Fulminate hadn't been discovered. This is what makes the primers. It's an unstable explosive which is easily impact detonated. Well, stable unless it's hit or heated. The saying "The Whole She-bang" originated from flintlock muskets. When the powder in the charging pan is lit, it would start burning and make the noise "Shhh-BANG" when the gun went off. The "Shhh" sound meant 2 things. First, it meant that the gun did not fire immediately, so the target could move in that time. Secondly, the "Shhh" gave the target (be it human or animal) a warning that SOMETHING was about to happen. (Hence, the target moving) It spoiled quite a few hunting trips. The mercury fulminate primer was invented to alleviate this problem. Invented by a priest if I'm not mistaken. Mercury Fulminate is ALSO sold commercially around the 4th of July. You've seen the snap caps I'm sure. Sometimes called "Pop-Its". Throw them on the ground and they pop and make a spark. I've actually set these off between my fingers and even in my mouth. The explosion is harmless, but it's more than enough to light gunpowder. You can in fact use Pop-Its to improvise a priming system for an explosive-driven slug thrower.
The spiral twist in the barrel. Ever watch football? You know how when the ball is thrown, it's thrown so that it has a spiral spin? Same concept as a bullet. It makes the throw far more accurate.
The point I'm making is that, in a 20th century level of technology, all of the concepts needed to make modern guns could exist, but have just never been put together in that configuration before. Like having yeast, flour and eggs, but never having heard of how to make bread.
I see no reason whatsoever why the first guns built couldn't be modern equivalents. If the individual concepts were known but had just never been put together, why couldn't an enterprising individual put them all together at once? Muskets don't HAVE to be the first guns. I will admit that it is much more likely, but I see no reason why it would HAVE to be that way. Especially if the verser inspired someone else to do it.
Two
Actually, I don't think the Pop-Its snap caps are mercury fulminate, now that I think about it. It's an iodine-based chemical that I can't recall at the moment. Mercury Fulminate is far more volatile and explosive than those snap caps. However, aside from that, the points I made still stand.
I'm glad to hear that you weren't chewing on a mercury-based explosive.
--M. J. Young
Well, aside from your concern for my well-being, what did you think of the points I made?
I didn't, really.
Well, that's not true. I agree that the development of bullets would be much faster in such a world; but it would still have to advance through the same stages. It's entirely possible that nothing would be manufactured or sold until they reached a more sophisticated level, but each step in the development is experimental, research and development:
- How can we propel the projectile? The fact that an explosion is thought to be the approach does not mean we'll know what explosive would be best to use.
- How can we cause it to fly straighter and farther? Every fletcher knew how to fletch an arrow such that it would spin in flight and so fly straighter, but guns existed for quite a while before someone thought to do the same thing, or figured out how.
- How can we simplify loading? Breach loading was a late development not because no one thought of it, but because explosions in the barrel tended to breach any weak points, and so solid guns were necessary. In fact, Wilkenson's English cannons were better than their French counterparts because the latter were molded in two halves and bolted together and the former cast solid and drilled, and thus the French cannons would burst asunder at the seams. This culture would certainly be able to drill the barrels, but how long would it take for them to think to do so? They could make secure breaches for breach-loading, but how many attempts would it take to balance the solidity of the cover against the force of the explosion?
- How long would it take for a single-unit bullet would be perfected? Sure, it would be obvious that a system in which the powder and the slug were in the same package and just had to be inserted into the gun would be faster, but will they figure out that mercury fulminate is a good choice for that? Remember, everyone knew how to make an electric light bulb by putting a resistive fragment into a circuit so it would glow hot and removing the oxygen so it wouldn't burn, but Thomas Edison tried over a hundred different materials before finding one that worked well enough to be commercially viable. Would they try cordite? Would they experiment with an electrical detonation system?
- Similarly, how long would it take to figure out that you could use the power of the recoil to advance the reload action? We had bullets for a long time before our guns could do that--I think that the Tommy Gun was the first successful weapon in that field. Gatling Guns and Revolvers relied on the "trigger action", the force exerted by the user, to advance the loading action. An automatic or semi-automatic system is desirable on its face, but its system is not intuitive. Someone who knew nothing about automatic weapons who came from a technology of this level might assume that the reloading action would be accomplished by electric motors and a battery pack.
Consider Terminator. There is not that much in a T-800 that does not already exist, in terms of the robotic components. That is, we know how to make servos, hydraulics, contractile fibers, microprocessors, decision programs, voice synthesis, and more. All of that was around in some form in 1984. Yet Cyberdyne still had to study it, to figure out the specific details and develop the applications. The T-800 would still be years in the making, despite having the plans right there. And you can't say that it came from the "distant future"; it came from 2029, less than half a century from 1984. It is more because they had no experience in those applications than that they didn't understand the technological concepts. The living flesh is still beyond us, but Cyberdyne didn't have any of that to study anyway.
--M. J. Young
I hadn't thought of it like that MJ. I kind of had kind of had it in the back of my mind, but I just couldn't get it to come forward. The other thing though that you're not taking into account is the human factor. Depending on how much havoc the verser is wreaking, they might speed up production in lieu of safety testing. I'm sure more than one test pilot was killed due to trying to speed things up rather than doing it safely. If someone is wreaking a Bob Thomas level of mayhem, I could easily imagine them wanting to go to working prototypes within a very short time. Increase the probability of botches too.
(Doing Therapy)
Many times rushing a scientific breakthrough backfires, and if society is lucky they're simply no worse off besides the loss of a few lives. However, it could easily go much worse than that.
Rushing a break through without checking all the pressures often leads to laboratory issues. In chemistry this could be chemical fires, material science could be not noticing a critical property of the material (such as a thermal expansion rate that's too high to accommodate the change in temperature during firing), and other fields could have similar issues. Unfortunately science doesn't always work on the timescale of when things are needed.
These issues aren't just monetary but also cost a lot of time, often much more than rushing the project saved.
Just look at what happened to Chernobyl.Many times rushing a scientific breakthrough backfires, and if society is lucky they're simply no worse off besides the loss of a few lives. However, it could easily go much worse than that.
Ya know something else? It's possible that they had it all worked out in theory but had never attempted to actually do it. They had the semi-auto design worked out in theory. Then it would just be a matter of building a working prototype. That could still takes years to perfect. Or it could take weeks. Of course, people could protest it. How would the world change socially because of this? The guy with the guns isn't "dying" for paintballs, why should I? Perhaps there develops a black market trade of homemade muskets, flintlocks, and cannons. I could imagine myself going that route as well. I've got metal working skills and gun knowledge.
I really think there should be no weapons, and at best, theoretical designs. The Honor System has failed, the paintball guns are unreliable anymore, I need something real. Perhaps militias form to battle the verser or other gun-toting maniac. I could imagine a mob of 20 or more with flintlocks would stand a fair chance against someone even as well-armed as I. How does the world change socially? People no longer leave their doors unlocked at night. You cross the street when you see a stranger coming, instead of tipping your hat to them. What happens? This could be fascinating.
(Doing Therapy)
Supposedly in WW2, we were going with two different methods to get to the A-bomb.
One book I read 'On Strategy' said that any massively effective new tactic or technical advance could only be used once because anything that is totally game changing forces the other side to do whatever it has to get that same advantage or defeat that advantage.
Now, its true that rushing things can make things take longer, but John is suggesting paying in a different kind of coin. Blood. I'm quite certain we could advance medicine a great deal faster than we are right now if we were willing to 'test to destruction' human 'volunteers'.
The Soviet space program probably did as well as it did, despite our technological and monetary advantages, because the Soviets paid in blood for their advances.
Now, its true that rushing things can make things take longer, but John is suggesting paying in a different kind of coin. Blood. I'm quite certain we could advance medicine a great deal faster than we are right now if we were willing to 'test to destruction' human 'volunteers'.
As sad as it is to say, it's kind of unfortunate that the records from the Nazi "medical experiments" were largely lost. Imagine what we could have learned from that which could advance legitimate medicine. If nothing else, learn what NOT to do.
Two
All throughout their history, tickling was the preferred method of torture. I mean tell me it wouldn't be torturous to be tied up and tickled for a couple of hours. And nobody would get hurt.
The Spanish Inquisition would have been developing new and better ways to tickle people. You couldn't sleep, you couldn't move, just lay there and be tickled until you confessed to being a heretic. Tell me that wouldn't be an effective torture.
(Doing Therapy)
My concerns is less with the mechanic of how the honor system would work, and more with the political state of the world. Some quick questions to get started-
Is this an "Earth-like" world? Did it develop along the same paths, or has society always found the least violent method of solving their conflicts? Did everyone at some point decide not to use guns, and "play by the rules"? Or has it always been like that?
If the world developed along the same general paths as ours, with many of the countries being similar, how did countries with strong warrior traditions develop differently? Did this world have Celtic berserkers, and Samurai, and such? Or has this world always been a more peaceful one? Tell me about this world's history.
If everyone just decided to develop an honor system to minmize violence, how did it start? What are it's origins, and the story behind it? Were I dumpend in this world, you bet i'd be asking these questions?
You say the police would have real guns locked in the cars; that means violence is greatly reduced but still present. Are there wars? If there are, does the same code apply? If a soldier is "killed", is he retired from active duty until the end of the war, and the "winner" is the one with the unpainted solderis left? Do they then get to dictate terms, even though no real force was ever used?
How seriously do the people take the honor system? Do they laugh about it as they fall down, perhaps, finding it funny but being glad they weren't really shot so accepting it for that reason? Or is it ingrained into their behavior, such that the whole thing is deadly serious, and as terrifying a situation as real weapons would make it? Just how ingrained in the populace's minds is this system ingrained?
I'm going to suggest one large empire with perhaps small, weaker countries around its fringe. The empire is very old, and stable.
Or is it ingrained into their behavior, such that the whole thing is deadly serious, and as terrifying a situation as real weapons would make it? Just how ingrained in the populace's minds is this system ingrained?
This is the way I'd want to go. It's so deep into their culture that the situation is just as terrifying as it would be if the guns were real. In military training, you know they aren't really going to kill you. I've been told that fact makes it no less frightening. If they're that afraid of paintballs, how much more so when the verser introduces a gun that fires bullets? There is no one who does not break the rule.
(Doing Therapy)
John, your argument plays against your conclusion. You note that trainees in war games find the situation "no less frightening" than real combat despite the full knowledge that they are completely safe from any real harm, but then you suggest that being that afraid of paintballs they would be "much more so" of real bullets. The example of the military games suggests that being that afraid of paintballs they would not be more afraid of bullets--they are as afraid of being shot by a paintball as they can be of being shot by anything, and thus the threat of genuine violence does not scare them more.
I'm more inclined to think that they take the concept of the paintball "death" seriously but gratefully, that is, they go down because they have some sense of how much worse it would be were real guns in use. This, though, implies:
- there must have been a time of serious violence from which this is respite;
- there must be or have been a governmental power with authority sweeping enough to create and enforce the change--a la Eric's central empire;
- there must have been very severe penalties for infraction when the change was first introduced, on the order of "if you do not drop when shot by the paintball you will be executed very painfully and your family severely punished.
--M. J. Young