Grrl Power #326 – All assembly required
Surely not the typical method for arming soldiers, but there was a lot of concern about arming Sydney in the first place. Never mind the fact she’s already armed with weapons far more dangerous than a pistol, but this method of making her work for her sidearm was agreed on to see if she had the discipline to put the thing together, and in the meantime drill into her all the training they can.
I’m almost reticent to mention it because there are about as many opinions about guns are there are people, but I finally decided on a FN Five seveN for her for a few reasons. It’s a relatively light pistol with relatively (it’s all relative, everything is) low kick and 20 rounds in the magazine. Also they’re hoping she’ll rarely ever touch the thing outside of training and certifying with it, so a light pistol makes sense for her. People had suggested basically everything else, glocks, M1911’s, HK45’s, M9’s, basically anything used by the military, and I’m sure they’re all perfectly acceptable weapons, but for some reason I fixated on the Five seveN sort of early on. It’s possible I’ll only even draw it outside of her holster a few times, but if I do then that’s the gun I’m planning on drawing.
Also I’ve fixed Peggy’s chevrons, she’s a Lieutenant, not a Captain. I’ll correct the previous pages when I get a chance.
Now for some pimpage:
Superbitch is one of my favorite webcomics, and now she’s got her own Patreon. I’d joke about people diverting funds away from my own Patreon to hers, but honestly I think it’s more of a rising tide situation.
Another project that could use some eyeballs is Stjepan Sejic’s Death Vigil. Apparently it’s struggling along which seems super weird to me since it’s Stjepan’s awesome art in it, and it has a mix of action, humor (mostly bad puns) and sweet looking Cthulhu-esque monsters in it. Anyway he’s posted everything so far for free on his DA page, which I’m linking here, but I’ll also link the Comixology page so you can buy DRM free PDF or CBR versions as well. They’re $2 each except for the current issue, that’s cheaper than most comics these days. (You can also get them on Amazon if physical comics are more to your tune, plus the Amazon link gets me a few cents on the dollar as well.) Anyway I read through them and enjoyed them (then bought them) so I thought I’d re-pimp him here.
Here’s the link to the new comments highlighter for chrome, and the GitHub link which you can use to install on FireFox via Greasemonkey.
SuperheroThey're super, thanks for asking!
Meatspace ComicSeriously these are awesome. Check 'em out!
Not UpdatingNo longer updating or only updates sporadically, but definitely worth reading.
SeriouslySeriously you guys. If you like Grrl Power the check these out.
"Mature"Mature subject matter and occasionally something explicit but usually safe. Can't guarantee the ads are safe though.
Dongs Ahoy!Full frontal and backal. Lots of skin, sex on some or all pages, explicit or otherwise.
Yeah, let’s not give Sydney any more firepower. She already has plenty.
It’s really just a drop in the bucket next to the PPO though
Yes, but the PPO is less… volatile. It doesn’t go off without Sydney deliberately trying to use it, and it’s been implied that it has a safety lock-out. Guns generally don’t have that.
And here I thought guns had a safetey for exactly that purpouse
True, but there’s no double check the way the PPO does. The PPO basically asks “Are you 100% sure you want to blow that thing up?”
true but if the gun goes off in its halser sydney has a hole in her foot and a painful trip to the hospital if the ppo gos of accidentally you are looking at remodeling a city and a load of overtime at the coreners office
its nice that it can’t go off accidentally.
Tell that to the forest that she incinerated accidentally. :)
From what we know of it R is perfectly correct. It will have resisted being used, so it would have taken a conscious effort to activate. Judging by Sydney’s comment that it is ‘pretty powerful’, she probably just underestimated it’s capability. Instead of zapping a dead tree trunk, she engulfed the whole forest in flames.
Where you are right, in your implication, is that the PPO is not to be trifled with. There is a considerable risk of friendly fire. Even if it will not activate by accident.
I leave this comment alone for one day, one day people! and it suddenly takes up half the page. I have created a monster.
To Yorp: It doesn’t ‘resist’ being used – There’s nothing to make that assumption. Sydney did say ‘it’s harder to use than the others.’ (said in an internal monologue when she was doing her Sydney hame ha) – that does not equal ‘it’s resisting being used.’ Wielding the power of a star isnt exactly a trifling ability. R has this habit if making assumptions as if they were fact. Rather than what they are – assumptions. One can an assumption based on the same exact evidence (such as it is) that the reason the PPO is harder to use is, instead of it having a ‘safety’ that there are little people in each of the orbs and the one in the PPO is a lot lazier than the rest. Assumption, without any basis. Not a fact.
To Firehawk: It’s all your fault. ALL YOUR FAULT! J’ACCUSE! J’ACCUSE! :)
I’m sure a major part of Sydney’s basic training is going to involve testing her powers under different circumstances repeatedly so she becomes comfortable with using them and learns their limitations.
Hmmm…Maybe the PPO’s safety was designed by Microsoft. “Are you sure you want to delete that target?”
It’s a good thing MS doesn’t program for the airbags in cars. By the time you can confirm that you need them, it’s already too late.
For that matter, it’s a good thing that Microsoft doesn’t *design* cars.
Otherwise, you could only have one person in the car unless you purchased a multi-user license, everyone would have to have the same sized butt, and once a year it would explode for no reason, killing everyone inside.
Mind you, given my dislike of software misbehaving, it is not nice to have it confirmed that we now live in an age where aircraft can fall out of the sky because of instillation errors, and the ilk.
I just hope that the next time we have solar activity that is sufficiently powerful to knock out satellites, power grids and the like, that we find we have not made aircraft and the rest of our infrastructure too vulnerable to that. One aircraft crashing is bad enough. Let alone all fly-by-wire aircraft aloft!
I just hope that we get one soon. And, hopefully, enough of our engineers will have proven to be foresightful enough to account for that. But, if they have not, the longer we have to transition society to reliance on computers, satellites and the cloud, the worse that day will be.
Especially as it would be a strong catalyst for another banking collapse. And loss of key communications infrastructure could hamper efforts to stabilise the situation. Even more so, when you realise how many key players, on the world stage, travel by air…
If Microsoft designed cars, it would give an all new meaning to the term ‘Car crash’
‘Blue Screen of Death on the Pavement?’
“Welcome to ‘Start Car, Version 4.807’. Please stand by while we update your software.”
If they create a Clippy for it, I’mma gonna have to start running people over.
would you like to add your starter and brake system to your google+ account? if no car will disable said systems wait five minutes and ask again until such time as you say yes.
NEVER EVER EVER trust the saftey on a gunEVER
+1 to ^That^
there is no safety, YOU ARE the safety!
The only acceptable gun control I need is that if there’s a gun in the room, it’s in MY control, not an intruder’s.
Well you could always just not have it loaded until you need it
One of the very first things one learns in gun safety is to always assume *every* gun is loaded unless you’ve just emptied the chamber yourself.
And even if you’ve emptied it, still treat it as loaded, just because someone could come into the room who doesn’t know that it’s empty, and will therefor presume it’s loaded.
Or load it.
an unloaded gun is a useless gun….and according to some bad luck.
It also has the virtue of being unable to misfire.
I will do you the favor of assuming you have spent no time in the military or around infantry, officers, or MP’s.
I havent. But I’ve watched every Rambo movie, every Dirty Harry movie, and every Jason Statham movie, which I believe does make me an expert in all things firearms.
Also it probably makes me an expert at stunt driving.
It’s standard weapon ethos; treat all weapons as dangerous at all times, but do not bring weapons to maximum level of danger unless one is in a situation where use is expected or potentially required. You don’t go sharpening a sword and then put it in storage.
Saying that guns need to be loaded at all times is equivalent to saying that bows need to be drawn at all times, or that swords need to be unsheathed at all times. It’s needlessly paranoid, and it makes the weapon more dangerous than it needs to be in some situations. Keeping a gun loaded whenever it is on your person (particularly for someone in the military, for whom it is a matter of professional standards) is perfectly reasonable. Keeping it loaded when it’s on your bed stand or under your pillow, or in whatever drawer you store it in is not only irrational, it’s irresponsible explicitly because you have maximized the weapon’s capacity to do harm and then left it unattended.
Never ever trust the safety on a gun ever.
Unless you’re trying to look cool, and holding the gun sideways. Because that just makes you look awesome.
its a lot less destructive to teach her aim with a 9mm than the explosion casing ppo. add to that the po probably not the best thing to use if you are in a built up area. given that its best to think of it as a less dangerous opeten than the ppo.
Even then the Lighthook probably has more oomph than her light pistol sidearm, plus she has more practice with it.
true enough but the gun has a longer range and its a good way to learn to aim so that when she needs to use the ppo she is less likely to hit ‘scraps of hope’ by mistake
Think of the poor orphan puppies!
It was human orphans and bunnies, unless you know something we don’t, Yorp.
You don’t care about orphan puppies?
*puppy dog eyes misting up, tearfully*
I am with Yorp on this one. Give me puppies over small humans any day.
MORTAL KOMBAT!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee-JMFKyHhk
Well, that explains a lot. You do know that if you only play a lawyer, on TV, that you should not pretend to be one? Well, when not on set anyhow.
Is there some kind of name for the condition, when an actor associates too closely with their character? Other than character actor, that is.
Perhaps you should phone Frasier Crane and get some counselling? On that, and your baby-fixation-by-proxy-syndrome?
I’d happily take in an orphan puppy if I could properly look after her.
I’d prefer a female, and I’d name her either Payback or Karma.
well payback’s a bitch
+1
I wish I’d thought of it myself.
Agreed, very nicely put.
Although karma is a chameleon.
Not really Yorp.
They come and go. They come and go.
Lady Pentrose: +1
Yorp: For that pun, you deserve a whack with a Culture Club.
Won’t someone think of the (orphan) kittens?
*sobs*
Sonic boom!
https://youtu.be/Yt-yCcoU9Kc
Hilarious compilation.
Yorp…Spellchecker
0%…………100%
For Pander: Ta-ra Ta-ra BOOM de Ay!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYLwMZ_3ZsM
I don’t get it.
another use for the gun is that americans are used to being told what to do by cops pointing guns at people (which is one reason i am glad i dont live there) the gun itself puts archons authority into an esaly recognised frame of reference of everyday americans
One of the subtle changes that I do not like, which has crept unnoticed into the UK is a change in regulations for firearms officers. Because they are rarely called upon, most have regular day job duties, such as community policing. When they get a call out to respond to an incident where armed police are needed, they can get in their vehicle and attend.
The change being that they used to be required to keep their firearms in the vehicle (in a secure storage unit designed for that purpose), and only get it out when it was needed.
Now though it has been deemed that they can keep them worn at all times. So armed police are now to be seen on mundane every day duties anywhere. Albeit that not all police are armed. But it is a precedent that I very much dislike and hope is reversed.
As can be seen with the cop by the pool, in America, any cop can have a bad day. And if that cop happens to have a gun by their side, they can start waving it around inappropriately. Let alone actually using it.
If the UK public do not take a stand now, we will start seeing incidents like that.
thanks for bringing that to my attention. i know a few mp’s (members of plement) and trust me i will be bring this up with them.
If you ever feel your life is in danger you can kill cops in self defence. It may be a crime but you won’t do time if the court agrees with your assessment.
One of the major reasons that improper policing so often becomes systemic ( at least here in the US) is that the police and the courts are “on the same side”. Our monkey brains still divide the world into “us and “them”, and for judges and prosecutors “us ” includes police.
The only way a judge would allow a jury to to come to a self defense verdict is if other police that were on the scene testified that it was self defense. You can guess how often that would happen. And yes, judges tell the jury what aspects of the law to consider and what testimony to consider, they totally steer the jury to it’s decision.
There’s also qualified immunity that prevents police and prosecutors from being sued, if they were “just doing their jobs” and the wrong people got hurt.
I agree with all your points.
Fortuntely, Jury Nullification is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Wow! You view all cops as being just one step away from going on a rampage or being corrupt?
they maybe aren’t now, who know what will be the situation in a year or 2.
its already fr beyond that in America, UK cops may start learning from them.
or worse… American cops may start migrating…
i know a quite few of those “american cops” and not one of them is even close to going on a rampage or corrupt….you only hear about the ones who are because it makes for a good story. the good police officers far outnumber the bad. media has corrupted the perception of police officers and it needs to stop
well, the % may be low, or maybe its just your luck, but in the end it has happened.
A few times even recorded on camera and NOONE has done anything about it.
if not for the “corrupt” (that’s their job, no scandal=no views) media we probably wouldn’t have ever heard about it, because they cover each other.
cowboyken I separate out the issues, in my thinking on these matters. So globally speaking (rather than just the USA):
Corruption
All humans are capable of it. But the most harm from it comes from those in a position of authority. Because they can cause the most harm, plus conceal detection and evade the consequences. As such I feel that politicians, the judiciary and police all need to be monitored and investigated for corruption. Fortunately the police do, so I am happy with them.
Whilst corruption if far more rampant and far less likely to be remedied in the former, any instance of it in the latter two are far more damaging. Because it is part of their job to fight it. Politicians get to define their own jobs, so lining of their pockets is something that goes hand in hand with that.
Cops get the worst end of it, mind. They are the most likely to be honest, but they are also the most numerous and, if they go bad, are more likely to be found out. Plus they get investigated by specialist police. Whereas politicians and the judiciary do not.
Mental health
Everybody runs the risk of mental health issues during their lives. Most common of which is depression. But those involved in traumatic professions are prone to PTSD too. Guns and breakdowns do not mix.
However it is not always possible, at the beginning of a day, to tell who might get pushed too far. And we do not keep everybody assessed every day of the week.
As such I do not feel anybody should have daily access to weapons, unless they are absolutely needed. That is practical for the majority of UK police. Sadly the same cannot be said for the USA.
I wish that their social attitudes, as regards guns, were closer to Switzerland. Where you have close to 100% gun ownership (most adults are members of the reserves and are required to possess a gun). But they are kept responsibly locked up (many without ammunition) and are not viewed as a lifestyle accessory, not an essential part of personal protection and home security.
As a result of which Swiss gun mortality rates are diametrically opposed to their gun ownership rates. Unlike in the USA.
But US cops have to live and work in that environment. So they do what they have to do. It is a tough job, and I have every respect for them doing it.
This is just in response to my good canine buddy, Yorp.
I’ll wouldnt say a bad thing about the police, given the tough and often unappreciated job they have – and when you take into account the miniscule amount of police who actually ever even FIRE their guns, compared to how many police there are, it’s actually very impressive, and the current state of the media bashing cops without any context or caring about the truth about the incidents is staggering and annoying.
But as for judges – I’ve seen a frightening amount of judges, in both New York, Ohio, and California (the states in which I’m bar certified) who make rulings and decisions that truly make me wonder how they managed to become judges in the first place. I mean… mind numbingly dumb people who don’t seem to grasp the law. I’m a little more understanding of judges who have no patience or social skills though, given some of the godawfully stupid people who come up before them (both attorneys and non-attorneys representing themselves). Plus it’s sort of amusing to watch them go off on lawyers who think they’re on the Jerry Springer show instead of in court. I’d lose my patience with a lot of those people as well if I had to deal with them day in, day out. :) Also – just letting you know, most judges do have to deal with a judicial review board if they get too out of hand, depending on the state they’re in.
Politicians, on the other hand – I have nothing good to say about most of them :)
—–
The other thing:
“As such I do not feel anybody should have daily access to weapons, unless they are absolutely needed. That is practical for the majority of UK police. Sadly the same cannot be said for the USA.”
You have to understand the reason for the 2nd amendment. It’s based on the idea that a well-armed public prevents tyranny of the government actually, not just for self-protection. It pretty much goes back to the founding of the country. The US is founded on the idea that it’s going to be the masses that are in charge of the government, rather than the other way around (which was the case in… well…. every other government on the planet going back to ancient times) – rather than them just being for ‘home security.’ I see no problem with people having guns, as long as they’re mentally stable, well trained and responsible. Like you mentioned with Switzerland. :) But I’m a Libertarian so that’s pretty much the standard line with libertarians – keep the government out of anything other than the minimum requirements to allow a functioning government, with strict adherence to the federal and state constitutions (mainly because government almost always messes things up, and tends to become tyrannical if they’re given too much unfettered power).
Please no one beat me up for this – I live in NY where it’s almost impossible to buy a gun anyway. :)
“…without any context or caring about the truth about the incidents…”
well then, since you apparently know better, can you explain:
-the time when armed group shot a homeless person?
-the time when 2 policemen drove by a random person, shot him and fled?
-the time a cop shot someone who was running away?
you clearly know why that happened so, could you pls share the truth with us?
(if you don’t know what i am talking about, there is around a 2 month old
video )
“-the time when armed group shot a homeless person?”
Which time?
“-the time when 2 policemen drove by a random person, shot him and fled?”
Which time?
“-the time a cop shot someone who was running away?”
This one – I’m assuming you mean the Charleston, South Carolina police officer who shot the man who was fleeing. He’s being prosecuted for murder. One cop does not an epidemic make.
As of 2011, there are over 1.5 million police officers in the United States. In that same year, there were over 12 and a half million arrests made. Less than one percent of one percent of those arrests involved fatal shootings. Of that miniscule number, the amount of unjustified shootings can be counted on a single hand. And the police officers involved got prosecuted as criminals. It’s sort of pathetic that you can take one person and claim that it’s the norm for 1.5 million people, when the opposite is true.
Pander re. your comment June 11, 2015 at 10:33 am
I agree with the various things said in your second paragraph, in support of the police. Although I feel that the BBC coverage has struck me as being reasonable.
For instance allowing me to clearly see instances where the race card is being played inappropriately. Whilst I do note that they fail to comment on that, I can see the reasons for such. And they have reported the facts openly enough, so I am satisfied.
Trouble is I am intimately familiar with an industry which had statutory regulatory power over it’s members. Their verdicts carried the weight of law behind them. As such it is a very close analogy to the greater legal system.
Where I saw, first hand, how industry members, sitting in judgement on their friends, colleagues and lodge members is not just. I saw whitewashes, where I knew justice was not being done. And the verdicts levied were trivial in proportion to the crimes. Fines that amounted to a fraction of the illegal gains made, for example.
And now I live in a country where corruption is fairly open. I have seen judgements being overturned, without either the prosecution or the defence having made a motion, and with no legal basis being offered, or even feasible.
It is frustrating for the lawyers involved, as all they can do is (privately) say that obviously a bribe has been passed over but they have no proof. Doubtless that would be sufficient for a judicial review, in other western countries. But, equally, I know that there the corruption is simply not so blatant.
Whilst I do actually have confidence in the legal system (outside of this country) at large, I do also know that people in a position of power do give into corruption. And judges are no exception. Yet we do not have an equivalent of the police internal affairs. A specialist police unit which investigates the judiciary.
Those very few members of the judiciary who I do see being prosecuted have made blatant blunders, which could not be ignored or discreetly covered up. We, the public, are well aware that the establishment close ranks and protect their own, for what other instances must have occurred. Their very lack is damning.
The recent controversy over historical cases of former UK MPs, alleged to have been paedophiles, having their investigations quietly closed down, before they became public knowledge, being a single case in point. Politicians, judiciary and the police all being viewed with distrust. Stemming from the lack of investigation, transparency and accountability.
I do. Intimately. However I personally feel that indoctrinating one’s own populace, into believing that violence against one’s own state is a good thing, to be rather a counter-productive idea.
The caveat that it is only meant to be done to prevent tyranny tends to get lost. Seeing cops being gunned down when just sitting in a restaurant, or in their patrol car, illustrates that point.
Please note though, that this is purely in response to your point. I realise that it is an important part of the American self-image and that the cultural heritage runs deep, on the issue. So I know that there are strong reasons for retaining it.
pander…
“Which time?”x2
at the end of my post i added a link, which is in the usual colour of orange.
not to see this you must have been either an idiot, blind or a liar..
if you were to see it you could clearly see that, while not million, its way more than 1.
you might have something good to say, but making lies will only invalidate it.
Chill R. Pander is making good counters to your arguments. You have done well in trying to keep your arguments dispassionate, up until then. Especially for something that is so obviously emotive. But it does neither you, nor your cause any good to loose it at this stage.
You are citing individual incidents. Which are being countered by statistics claiming that this is a minority situation. Which is a perfectly valid debating gambit. Reiterating the individual instances is not advancing your cause at all.
Whilst it is emotive, it is not a convincing counterargument. If I were you, I would instead point out the disparity in black arrests in proportion to their demographics. There are plenty of useful statistics that you can find on the matter.
Then you are fighting fire with fire.
And, if you think about it, if Pander were to try and respond to you, in kind, (hopefully without getting heated in return), what would you expect her to do to make her point? Link you to 50,000 videos of policemen responding to crimes, plus people saying “thank god the police got there in time”?
Mind you, whilst that does go to show bias in policing, it is one that specifically only deals with racial issues. But which does not address police corruption in general. So that is just one angle, but not one you might wish to pursue.
Googling “Police corruption USA” brings up a whole page of goodies you could sift through to find statistics or proof of more widespread issues. Bear in mind that you are trying to convince a lawyer here though. On issues which are very much on her own turf.
So, if you want her to concede a point, or find some middle ground, where you can come to agreement, you will need to convincingly counter the issues she has raised.
Yorp.
at this point i don’t care about % anymore.
just that Pander said “one” when there was clearly more than one.
because she didn’t knew about the other ones, therefore it didn’t happen…
that last post wasn’t about “right or wrong”. i am angry about her lying.
that’s an entirely different matter.
Ahh, perhaps I can help you relax on that matter then? Have a re-read of what Pander wrote, prior to that.
So she has acknowledged that there is more than one case. As such her summation was just poorly worded, rather than being a lie, in my opinion. It would be nonsensical for her to contradict herself in that way, if that was her intent.
The gist of it being that that you cannot take a small number* of incidents and say that all the officers on the force are doing the same.
You are allowing yourself to get overwrought about something that is not an issue.
If you are fed up with the debate then don’t forget that it is always a valid option to simply agree to differ.
* The other way she may have been intending to phrase it, as an example was “you cannot take one incident and apply it to 300,000 officers”.
R: “at the end of my post i added a link, which is in the usual colour of orange.
not to see this you must have been either an idiot, blind or a liar..”
Hey – look! R’s doing his ass-hat impression again! Hey asshat! :)
“if you were to see it you could clearly see that, while not million, its way more than 1.”
Three is more than one, hrm. Still a lot less than 1.5 million, asshat.
“you might have something good to say, but making lies will only invalidate it.”
If only I could be as mature as you by calling other people idiots and liars, ass-hat.
R:
Btw, since apparently you can’t read, I said that there are less than 1 percent of 1 percent of police interactions that ever result in an unjustified shooting. I did not say there is ‘1 unjustified shooting’ – but at least I have actual FBI statistics to back myself up, while you just have whatever sewage leaks out of your brain. And OF the unjustified shootings, the police in question do get prosecuted. Although you do realize that the police also are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, which is something you seem to gloss over. My point is, which apparently you can’t comprehent, that a miniscule amount of people who do something wrong can’t be used as proving that most police, or even a large percentage of police, are violent gun-happy psychos.
By your same idiotic rationalization, you can say if a certain small percentage of a minority commit crimes, that would be evidence that the entire minority group is violent. Feel like making that comparison also? No. Then maybe you can be quiet for a change.
God you’re stupid..
Yorp: Thank you. Have a scooby snack. :)
If I were you, I would instead point out the disparity in black arrests in proportion to their demographics.
The problem with using demographic statistics in this argument is that they do not attribute cause. The fact that more black people* are being arrested and prosecuted doesn’t tell us whether the difference is attributable to police bias or to black people committing more crimes. Recent national news would say the former, but the far greater rate of black-on-black violence and homicide would argue the latter. Personally I think it’s a little of column A and a lot of column B but my point is we don’t know. The causal information isn’t being collated, just the flat numbers.
*I also have to point out that the term black people is a terrible label for a group of people who have skin tones ranging from cream to midnight and who come from over a dozen countries. It is perpetuated by politicians and the media because it’s a convenient handle for a large and diverse group of people that can easily be used to divide and distract them.
!)
“One cop does not an epidemic make.”
“I did not say there is ‘1 unjustified shooting’ ”
say again?
2)
calling me immature for calling you lier OR an idiot, and then you call me an asshat… you are not any more mature than i am.
and still, “Which time?”x2= you havent seen it.
3)
“have whatever sewage leaks out of your brain.”
This is way too mature for me, there is no way for me to respond to that, i am so defeated right now because of it… oh wait, no.
4)
elsewhere i hear they were punished, from a source far more respectable than you. so if the people on the video were punished, fur what?
obviously for what they did on the video REALLY HAPPENED!!!
5)
“…can’t be used as proving that most…”
most? you are really late with this.
whats the last time i said that most of the cops are psychos?
at the very beginning i made a not very well thought comment.
then someone said that its accusation “…without any context or caring about the truth about the incidents…”
so i liked the video in which there are clearly a few policemen being rather excessive.
then look back at point 2.
6)
go read what MSpears wrote below. pls
5)
i meant point ! (supposed to be 1)
I don’t.
Yea, I may well have been better, in this instance, saying African American. The only trouble is that when I am talking about
I am usually not doing so when referring to just those who currently live in America. And I prefer to globalise the issues, as they do not just happen to the USA. Racial discrimination happens in many countries. However
seem to suffer more from it than other ethnic minorities. So, when discussing prejudice and discrimination, it can be important to identify that you are not just talking about generic ethnic minorities. But specifically
who the media often, for the sake of convenience call ‘black’. I do so likewise, as a matter of expediency, rather than with any intention to cause offence.
I am open to suggestions, on alternatives, however.
1) “say again?”
What was I saying that’s too complicated for you to understand? I said I did not say there has been only one unjustified shooting. I said there is only 1 percent of 1 percent of police interactions which result in a potentially unjustified shooting. Was I speaking in words that are too complicated for you, perhaps? Would you prefer pictures? If Johnny has 1.5 million apples, and of that 1.5 million apples…. actually you know what? We’re in the computer age. Use a calculator and figure it out for yourself.
2) “calling me immature for calling you lier OR an idiot, and then you call me an asshat… you are not any more mature than i am.”
The difference being I only call you that after you start calling me an idiot. Until that point, I’m nice and patient with you. Then you start namecalling, like the pathetic little pissant that you are, and the gloves are off.
3) “This is way too mature for me, there is no way for me to respond to that, i am so defeated right now because of it… oh wait, no.”
Allow me to explain.
I was insulting you. Because your ability to argue is full of BS. Get it now? :)
4) “obviously for what they did on the video REALLY HAPPENED!!!”
For what one police officer did, he’s being prosecuted. You know – by the law. Because that’s how the law works. You do something that may be illegal, you get arrested and tried in court by a jury of your peers. You know…. LEGALLY.
Lets face it. Michael Brown? He robbed a store, attacked the store owner, attacked the cop, hit him several times with his upper body IN THE COP CAR, tried to TAKE THE POLICE OFFICER’S GUN, then after getting shot…. he RAN AT THE COP AGAIN TO ATTACK. Multiple witnesses confirmed this. The person claiming ‘hands up’ was Michael Brown’s cousin, who was later found to be lying.’ The forensics supported the police officer’s story. Almost all the witnesses (who were largely too scared to appear publically, but stated so in private settings), confirmed the police version of the story. The courts found the officer was acting in self defense. Even the FEDERAL INVESTIGATION from the Department of Justice came to the same conclusion.
Staten Island – A jury – mostly African American – who heard a lot of evidence came to the conclusion that the police officer was not guilty. I guess you know more than the US justice system, oh all-knowing-R. PS – if you say ‘I can’t breathe’….. then you’re breathing. Thus there was no choke hold. Maybe it’s because the guy weighed 300+ pounds and was not in the best health. Yes, he shouldnt have died and it’s terrible that he did. But no, the police officer wasnt criminally liable, based on the jury decision.
Baltimore – so far, we’ve found that the knife Freddie Grey was illegal. We’ve found that he was a drug dealer. We’ve found that the police were ordered by the Prosecutor (who is doing the prosecution right now when she really should have recused herself) had ordered the police to make arrests on that EXACT BLOCK, despite her claims that she didnt. It’s in her handwriting, with her signature. So far nothing but lies. We have forensic evidence which says the wounds may have been self inflicted. We have video surveillance which shows them never being violent with him, with multiple cameras.
South Carolina – this is the one example where I think the police officer is guilty. He looks like he shot a fleeing suspect on a routine stop (who was running from him, which is honestly a stupid thing to do, but no excuse for the cop), then may have planted his taser by the dead victim. And he’s being prosecuted, and probably will be found guilty.
The point is, 10-20 seconds of video does not usually show any context, and the news programs and politicians FREQUENTLY have other agendas for stories, rather than seeking the truth of what actually happened, which is found from forensic evidence and witness testimony.
5) “at the very beginning i made a not very well thought comment.”
And followed up with several other not-well-thought out comments. Each of which I refuted – without calling you names. Then you responded by…. namecalling. Which generally means you are clueless and unable to argue your point with any facts.
“so i linked the video in which there are clearly a few policemen being rather excessive.”
Again – out of context.
6) “go read what MSpears wrote below. pls”
Must be very pertinent for you to not be able to just tell me what MSpears said, rather than have me search the entire comments section and figure out which of MSpears’ posts you’re talking about.
Yorp:
I might be misunderstanding what you said, and if so I apologize in advance.
You said: “a group of people who have skin tones ranging from cream to midnight and who come from over a dozen countries seem to suffer more from it than other ethnic minorities.”
I would actually disagree with this. For example, the jews are historically picked upon – worldwide, mind you – by other ethnic groups, regardless of the color of their skin, by people who are also of many different ethnic groups – and I’d be willing to say that they’ve suffered far more than the groups you’re referring to. For centuries, if not millenia. And yet they’ve also historically given an inordinate amount to the progress of humanity in medicine, literature, theoretical and practical science, philosophy, technological advancement, agriculture…. the list goes on and on, but Samuel Clemens said it best in Harper’s Magazine in 1898 (to give an example just how long they’ve been suffering)
https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1898twain-jews.asp
Also, asians in the United States seem to have a far lower arrest rate than other ethnicities – statistically speaking – but I don’t think it’s because asian people are inherently better. And it’s definitely not because of some ‘asian privilege.’ In both cases, it’s because of societal norms within those groups – primarily education – and higher education leads to higher levels of wealth. And higher levels of wealth lead to less criminal behavior (yes, I know – there’s white collar crimes, I’m talking about violent crimes – it’s far more rare for people in affluent neighborhoods (white, black, asian, hispanic, whatever) to take part in violent crimes than people in impoverished neighborhoods (again – white, black, asian, hispanic, whatever). The problem tends to be that certain minorities are more impoverished than others, which leads to living in areas with higher crime rates.
I’m not sure how we go to discussing this from talking about something involving guns… but…. here we are.
Pander your own analysis is actually answering your question. When discussing racial discrimination, it is necessary to identify discrete communities, who suffer a common pattern of abuse. To try and isolate the causes and thereby inform policy on how to counter it.
To clarify, please note that I did not say they “… suffer more from it than ALL other ethnic minorities.” They suffer more than many. Whilst others may suffer more than them. We need to be able to identify who is suffering and where.
That really is it, as far as my comment went.
I agree with your points on social deprivation being a greater influence, on crime, than race. And the fact that culture can have a big influence on it too. It is worth noting that Asian culture historically encouraged their diaspora to retain strong social and economic ties. Which helps insulate communities against poverty.
Something which is also true of Jewish populations. But which, itself, leads to resentment and racial discrimination. Notably, as you mentioned, during the Holocaust.
Mind you, that does tie in to points above. Do recall that the Nazis ordered Jews to wear a yellow Star of David, so they could be identified. Contrary to Nazi propaganda many would not be distinguishable from their neighbours.
Whereas somebody who stands out, from their skin colour alone, does not need that, in order to be targeted for discrimination.
I do understand what you’re saying, and you do make some good pertinent points.
Actually another notable thing was that, even 60 years before the Holocaust, Mark Twain was already writing in Harper’s Magazine about how many different civilizations and people had tried to wipe out the jewish people. And there werent yellow stars being tied to them to do so. And again… asian people are quite visibly non-caucasian, but they have a markedly lower set of incident of problems with police than other many other minorities, regardless of skin color, OR caucasians.
There’s also the fact that a lot of hispanic people are also white, and yet there is still a higher incident of poverty and crime among hispanics than non-hispanic caucasians, even when the skin color is similar.
Again…. I do see your point though – that skin color is a very VISIBLE sign of differences between people which can be used as an easy scapegoat for bigotry. However, the skin color can only influence how others see the person. It shouldnt influence how they see THEMSELVES.
I just find, being a minority myself (and I will not say which minority, but it’s one which you can tell from just looking at my skin color) that I find a familial importance set on education to be the primary thing which separates having trouble with the police, how one reacts to police, and crime, and not having trouble with the police, how one reacts to police, and crime. Take Ben Carson, for example – he came from a very poor family. A /very/ poor family. His mother was illiterate from what I’ve read and seen in interviews. She did not graduate from high school. She managed to raise two sons, and forced them to focus on education. She’d make them read books, then write book reports on what they’d read. Book reports that she, herself, was not able to read. She instilled a respect for education in them. Now Ben Carson is one of the most intelligent and accomplished surgeons (a neurosurgeon, in fact – the most difficult type of doctor anyone can ever choose to be) on the planet, very wealthy, had never had any criminal problems, and is running for President. You can say the same for Marco Rubio, who’s hispanic and was raised by a father who was a bartender and mother who was a hotel housekeeper. He’s hispanic (Cuban) and you can tell from his skin color. His parents, who were not as poor as Ben Carson’s mother (but were Cuban political refugees and not well-off by a longshot) fostered a respect for education in him. He’s now a Senator, and running for President as well. I know I’m only mentioning Republicans but right now there really isnt anyone on the Democratic side I can point to other than Hillary, and she hasnt exactly ever had to ‘suffer’ growing up (except her husband cheating on her, and by that time she was already, I suspect, pretty well aware of that sort of thing with Bill). I could point to Carley Fiorina though, who’s the female candidate for President on the Republican side, who went from being a secretary to being CEO of Hewlett Packard, and likewise had been instilled with a respect for education. I can also say the same for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the Supreme Court (so that no one can say I’m just picking people on the Republican side). And these people grew up in a time where it generally wasnt expected for women (who are noticeably different from men as people of different skin color are different) to excel in educational pursuits (especially in the tech or science sectors, or business, or law).
The common thread between all these people is a respect for education. And they didnt just let bigoted people’s view of them change how they thought of themselves. To use some wordplay – they didn’t let how certain people react to the color of their skin (or their gender), color their perceptions of themselves.
[internal monologue] Whee! Another ethnic minority friend. Ooh, I hope an exotic one, like Inuit. No, no don’t be silly, that is very very unlikely. But still, there is a chance for some exotic flavour to one of the American accents. Now, don’t come across all ‘I must collect them all!’, calm down. [disengage monologue]
*deep breath*
Pander Dat is cool. Citing positive role models is good for helping to hold prejudice in check. Both by inspiring those who suffer from it, to rise above it, and to help those who might perpetrate (or condone it, via inaction) to see things in a more positive light. And education is a powerful tool, on both sides.
Trouble is that is treating the symptoms, not the cause. And I think fear is the biggest driver, in various forms. Fear of the unknown, the unfamiliar the different, the outsider and even change. Because change can drive people, without a choice, towards those other fears.
Education and familiarity can counter some (such as the irrational ones), but not necessarily all, of those fears. Sometimes you have to recognise what is causing those fears and find a way to resolve that. Or at least to minimise it’s effect.
Fear can also have a feedback, which affects those on many sides of the equation. By example the fear of oppression, by the colonial English, in India, caused a political movement, which held a vocal rally, to demand action. The English, in turn, feared an uprising, with the credible threat of being massacred. And rumours drove the fear until a massacre did occur. But of the political movement, at a rally.
By all accounts, the army commander was not a racist. And he certainly was educated. Despite that though, he gave into fear. Better understanding, of the true situation, would have helped mind. As the rumours turned out to be completely without basis. Mismanagement by the army simply turned a tense, but peaceful rally, into a fear-fuelled panic, with no escape route. And deadly consequences.
Those fears exist in many places. White farmers in Africa fearing their farms will be confiscated and that they might be murdered. The poor black populace fearing that their situation will never improve. Everybody fearing the high levels of crime
These fears can form a complex web, and are not restricted to just racial divides. Religious and cultural ones come into play, amongst others. Fear can direct frustrations and resentments towards specific targets. Fear of the outsider, for instance, driving xenophobic violence in South Africa recently.
There many forms of fear: poverty; scarcity of resources (medicine, food, water, even luxuries); seeing outsiders in your neighbourhood; culture and customs being changed; stigma; ostracism; oppression and so on.
Stop the fears, and the causes of the fears, and we can stop the persecution. Or, more realistically, minimise the fears, to minimise the problems.
1) I’m not Inuit. :) I guess I’m arguably an ‘exotic’ ethnicity depending on what you consider exotic. :) Since you’re from Australia, I’m going to assume that you’d probably consider me an ‘exotic’ ethnicity though (from either parent’s side most likely)
2) “Trouble is that is treating the symptoms, not the cause.” – Lack of education IS the cause. Symptoms are things like poverty, aggression, criminal behavior, negative reactions to the police, distrust of society.
3) “And I think fear is the biggest driver, in various forms.”
Fear is also just a symptom, not the cause. Lack of education creates ignorance. Ignorance creates fear of the unknown, or fear of things which are different than what one is comfortable with, at least. Trying to not sound like Yoda right now.
4) Not meaning to offend, but most of what you said about the colonial English and India don’t actually make sense in this particular debate, since that seems to be more about imperialism and manifest destiny in general than hatred or even dislike of a particular race.
Every example you gave about fear is fear being a symptom. Not being a cause. In each case, education and creating a cultural belief in educational excellence would fix the problem.
Poverty = I’ve already explained how education and a cultural importance placed on education can take someone out of poverty
Scarcity of Resources = Again, cultural importance placed on education can fix almost every aspect of this. Israel seemed to so. In the 1800s, the region was mostly a barren desert. Now it’s a flourishing metropolis with rich ariable land (although they are still under the constant threat of attack from most sides). GMO’s could feed most of the planet, but people are ignorant about the benefits because they hear ‘genetically altered’ and get into fear of mad science (ignoring stuff like how bananas are a genetically altered fruit which would not exist as it is today – or even be edible to human beings. Corn is massively genetically altered as well, and has been for a LONG time. Grapes, raisins, beef, chicken, sugar, wheat – it’s already genetically modified and has been for centuries. New technologies are just improving that. But people tend to unfortunately be pretty stupid.
Ostracism and Stigma – depends on what’s being ostracized or stigmatized
Oppression – The reason so many dictators first kill off the intellectuals is because an uneducated population is easier to successfully oppress without them rallying against the dictator. There’s a reason why “Boko Haram” literally translates to “Education is Forbidden” or “Education is Evil.”
Minimizing fear requires knowledge. Knowledge generally requires education. So if you have an educated populace, who actually wants their future generations be educated, it’s harder to dupe them into following a charismatic OR fear-mongering leader, or ignorant attitudes.
Pander I am many things, but Australian is not one of them. Cornish and English by culture and recent decent. African by original decent (but there again we all are). South African by birth (and Africa remains in your heart).
I think you have a problem with cause and effect in your argument. The rest of it though I do understand, and realise why you are saying what you do. It pretty much follows mainstream politically correct views on racism and how to handle it. Trouble is those have not found universal success.
Whilst I believe my approach, in looking at it differently, offer ways which would deal with the flaws. And will be increasingly important as conditions worsen, due to climate change. All prejudices, be they racial, ethnic, cultural, religious or nationalistic will be magnified. As will the critical flaws, that I believe exist.
Sadly though, explaining it all would take at least four massive posts. One on anthropology. Another on history. Then one to unpick your cause and effect arguments, and contrast them to reality. Using the other two posts to corroborate my arguments. And then the final one to move on to the actual issues.
All of which is very much off-topic, from the current comic. So I suggest we save such debates. Much of the Marvel mutant setting does serve as an analogy for issues like these. Should Grrl Power venture into prejudice issues between supers and normals, then that would be a more appropriate time to pick it up again.
However, whilst the gun issue will doubtless remain an ‘agree to differ’ I do not think that there is much difference between our views on prejudice. I have a pretty good idea on how I could convince you, that a slight change on perspective can have a world of difference.
One thing though Pander (and not wishing to get into a debate about it, nor am I bothered, but just to mention it) my post no more promoted Imperialism and Manifest Destiny than yours did Nazism. Both dealt with tyranny inflicted by the government on the populace.
Yours was to illustrate a point about racism. Mine was to show how fear is a dynamic, when you have racially tense situations. Both of which resulted in atrocities. Which is rather pertinent when discussing persecution.
that is how the media portrays police officers….and yes there are bad apples but you get those everywhere….and people crucify the profession as a whole because of those few….just like they all sit around the donut shop getting fat. the people know what media tells them and the media around the world is telling people that american police are all corrupt and insane. and I0wten i want to point out that most police do not pull out their sidearm unless they feel threatened they will calmly give you instructions unless you give them a reason to draw their firearm…i have had several interactions with police from several levels of law enforcment and never once seen an officer draw their sidearm. and typically they will pull their tazer before they pull their gun.
i hate the few bad apples excuse take newyork for example a few “bad apples” showed a need for reform and instead of doing what was needed to stop abuse of power every single cop who had the chance refused and turned their back on the mayer.
the biggest problem that is shown time and time again is not the cops who do the wrong thing but the other cops who let it slide and help cover it up. hell if they weren’t cops it whould be called aiding and abetting
you speak as if every single police officer in america is that way though and in that you are dead wrong. saying “american cops are corrupt” is the same as saying “black people from ferguson/baltimore are violent thugs” it is using a small percentage to represent the whole. and as far as i am concerned the fear that police are no longer competent is being propagated by those in power so that they can claim more power.
if they had problem with the “bad representation” dont you think they would do something about it?
let me quote the above:
“aiding and abetting”
I agree with IOwten and will add to that. The police have been heavily militarized recently with military gear and Vets joining the force. The new mindset seems to be that everyone is a possible threat (unless you know them or are part of their group). This is a very Military point of view. This is why innocents die in war. We need to either “declaw the lions” or change them into dogs. Going into any neighborhood expecting trouble will always get you trouble. I’m not sure that most cops see these attitudes as a bad thing and that in itself is a bad thing.
I work with cops a lot. Their policy of covering fellow cops without question may be about to change. It needs to change, if they want to regain public trust.
The phrase is ‘A few bad apples spoil the bunch’. People see a few bad apples who aren’t getting thrown out of the police force when they’re found (and pressing charges where appropriate), and the conclusion that they reach is that the bad apples are protected by a department of bad apples. It’s a logical leap.
You underestimate it actually. I view all humans as being capable of going on a rampage or being corrupt. Putting on a badge does not stop them from being human.
One in three people suffer depression during their lives. Ergo at least one in three cops will do so likewise. Probably more given how much abuse they have to put up with, on a daily basis, just for doing their jobs. Let alone all the trauma that they have to cope with too.
In my day-to-day life, the most I might do, if pushed to my limits, is throw my PC out of the window. I find irritating changes, being forced on my daily routines and work, by faceless computer executives to be particularly irritating. And am glad that I am not in an environment where I might see one of them whilst being so frustrated.
And I am doubly glad that I am not armed under those circumstances. Because I certainly could see myself making my irritations known! And that is just with trivia. Not with the life-or-death situations that cops get thrust into on a daily basis. They have vastly more justification for ‘loosing it’ than I do.
If I do not trust myself with a firearm, why should I trust a cop?
Unlike the USA, there is no need in the UK (or most of Europe, for that matter), for cops to go armed. An armed response unit can be summoned, where there is a need. And UK police are trained, equipped and capable of handling anything below that danger level.
There is no need to put them, or their careers, at risk from having to carry unnecessary firearms. Even ignoring the risk to the general public. Not to mention the possibility of provoking an out of control armaments war, as criminals tool up to defend themselves from armed police.
when you own a gun you tend to get a new perspective on things….especially if you are trained to use it properly. i dont fear armed police that is not why i own a gun. i own a gun because if someone were to break into my house carrying a weapon calling the police would not get them to my house in enough time to mitigate the situation… whereas the moment the intruder is staring down the barrel of my 9mm they know i mean business. now are there irrisponsible gun owners yes. are there people who shouldnt ever be allowed to carry a firearm yes. but to the degree you describe is simply paranoia. you dont trust yourself with a firearm the same reason i dont trust myself flying a plane. it is not something you are familiar with. a pilot is familiar flying a plane therefor i trust him in the same sense a police officer is familiar with firearms so they deserve at least a little trust. and in my experience you dont get a warning that things are going to become dangerous until it is already at the point of sink or swim and i personally want to be as prepared as i can be when that happens.
+1
dam block quote the quotes were
i dont fear armed police that is not why i own a gun
&
the moment the intruder is staring down the barrel of my 9mm they know i mean business.
Yup. Because you are living in fear. I don’t own a gun because I do not.
Statistically you (American with gun) are much more likely to be shot* than me (Brit without a gun) as one statistic.
As another you are much more likely to be murdered than me. Which is not to say that Americans are more murderous than Brits. Much of the discrepancy is simply down to the ease of killing with guns and their availability. Although social attitudes (as per my point on Switzerland) do come into it too.
As a society your fear drives you in an ever-worsening spiral that actually makes you more likely to die.
Not that, as an individual, you have much choice. You are caught in the spiral. If you do not have better armament than your neighbour, he might kill you before you kill him!
I advise you to sleep in full body armour, holding a fully automatic weapon, with armour piercing bullets.** Even if your neighbour does not have them, the villains do.
Personally I do not know of anybody who has been shot. Or murdered. Well, other than via friends in the USA. All too many of those.
* Be it accidentally or on purpose, by yourself or by another, with your own weapon or someone else’s.
** Subject to legality of such in your particular jurisdiction of course.
a plane pilot has his own life on the line.
a gun user can shot someone on a whim, and if no one saw it it didn’t happen.
sure an investigation for the murder will happen, but it will be inconclusive if the person investigating it is the person who fired the shot.
and that’s the problem.
just because they are few doesn’t mean its not there.
there have been recordings and and the rest of them were, again, “aiding and abetting”
you arguing that “there are more good ones” can also be seen as “aiding and abetting” as you are clearly trying to turn people away from the issue, and persuade everyone to overlook the issue and give them more margin of doubt.
Another problem the US is having with LEO is the recruitment pool tends to be recently discharged military who until VERY recently were involved in a shooting war with forces that did not wear uniforms and secreted themselves among the civilian population. That would be bad enough in and of itself, but add in to that a high percentage of that pool having various degrees of PTSD and you get potential for a “trigger” of a reaction that even the cop had no idea was possible, leading to bodies in the street and other “bad things”. My son-in-law is a LEO and he has been commenting that they can’t find suitable candidates for employment because too many are trained to occupy a territory rather than police it and revert to initial training when confronted. He works for a small town PD in Texas so they don’t have the kind of pay that a big city (of which there are several nearby) can offer so they tend to get “leftovers”, but he was telling me that the big city next door is having much the same problem.
“when you own a gun you tend to get a new perspective on things”
Yup. Because you are living in fear. I don’t own a gun because I do not.
Statistically you (American with gun) are much more likely to be shot* than me (Brit without a gun) as one statistic.
As another you are much more likely to be murdered than me. Which is not to say that Americans are more murderous than Brits. Much of the discrepancy is simply down to the ease of killing with guns and their availability. Although social attitudes (as per my point on Switzerland) do come into it too.
It’s not about living in fear. I’ve always supported reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but a few years ago I had to swap to a hardline view that everyone should have a gun because the United States government has abrogated their responsibility to the people via the Supreme Court which ruled that the police have a duty to potect the public, not individuals. This means they are required to protect groups of people but are not required to come to your house when someone breaks in in the middle of the night. Most cops will still show up for a call like that, but they aren’t required to anymore. They can’t be held accountable if you call to tell them you are being attacked and it takes them an hour to respond. Frankly the crazies are in charge of the assylum now and the rest of us are screwed.
As far as the murder rates go, UK and US murder rates are actually pretty close in spite of the lack of firearms in the UK. You can’t compare the official stats because of the odd way the UK reports homicides. The UK only records a homicide if someone is caught and successfully prosecuted for it, and then it is reported for the year the conviction is achieved, not the actual date of the crime. I.e. If I stabbed someone to death in 1990 and am caught and convicted in 2010, the homicide is reported as if it happened in 2010. If I’m never caught it isn’t recorded as a homicide at all. To get the real numbers you have to collect and review coroner reported stats for each county and add them up yourself. Doing so yields a much lower gun violence rate but a correspondingly higher knifing rate. If someone really wants to kill you they’re going to find a way.
Personally I do not know of anybody who has been shot. Or murdered. Well, other than via friends in the USA. All too many of those.
I live in the USA within 20 miles of a town with one of the highest murder rates in the country. I’ve never known anyone who was shot or murdered. I’m 35 and I’ve only known 3 people who were ever threatened with anything beyond a schoolyard fight. As with any large geographic region we have good areas and bad areas. If you have half a brain you just avoid the bad areas and you don’t have too much to worry about. Can anyone honestly say it’s safe to walk down every street in London? How about Madrid?
Correction: I went and checked the numbers again because it had been a while since I read the article on UK murder reporting. The UK actually has almost DOUBLE the murder rate of the US.
For 2011, there were 14,022 murders in the US (all categories, not just guns) or 4.5 deaths per 100,000 people.
For the same time period there were about 4,700 deaths in Britain or 8.5 per 100,000 people.
Here’s the article for anyone interested.
https://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html
TheCrimsonF*cker Your source is a private individual, who’s expertise on the matter is “science fiction writer”, writing in a blog, which is liberally sprinkled with pro-gun propaganda. It is lacking in any credibility.
This is a false conclusion inspired by the biased propaganda you are relying on. Crime statistics are garnered from police reporting, and based on their assessment. Should that assessment be found to be incorrect, then the figures are adjusted. So if a court finds that a murder was not committed, it ceases to be recorded as a murder.
The blogger makes much of the statistics for Harold Shipman. But given that he was a doctor, and all his murders, over many years, were recorded as “natural causes” due to the death certificates that he himself signed. It would have been impossible to record the deaths as murders, in the years they were actually committed, as they were not known about!
This case is what is known as a statistical anomaly. One man who, on his own, distorted the national murder statistics. Merging his figures into the database, retroactively and individually, on a ‘year when committed’ basis would cause many problems. And would be inconsistent with normal procedures.
So a judgement call was made to record it as a single block, in one year. This makes it easy for researchers to identify the figures and decide how to cope with the anomaly. Typically by being removed, if it is not pertinent to the matter being analysed.
Note that in most instances there is not a discrepancy between the year a murder is committed and the year it is recorded by the police.
I am not going to waste more of my time on his article, given his lack of credibility in the first place. However there is a less biassed resource I can point you at, which draws its information from United Nations reporting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Murder Rate per 100,000 people:
United Kingdom (2011): 1.0
United States (2012): 4.7
Sorry, missed a closing tag on my bold formatting. No shouting intended.
It is very difficult for a human police officer to not subconsciously sort people into “good guys” and “bad guys” based on things like appearance or perceived identity. It’s how human brains work. So any armed cop that is under pressure while surrounded by people who are visually similar to many real criminals that the same cop has arrested, is only a step away from “going on a rampage”.
Noting that Australian police are routinely armed when out and about, have been for many years. Often well-armed (Glock, mace, nightsick, taser, etc. for NSW Police). I certainly won’t dispute that we have our bad ‘uns, and there is no argument that there have been …. incidents, but nothing like what seems to happen in the US.
Yes, Australia has a much smaller population (20 million or thereabouts), but if you take that in comparison with areas in the US of similar population size (say, the New York or LA areas), as far as I can tell, we have less than a TWENTIETH of their incidence of police weapons misuse, shooting unarmed people, that sort of thing.
Thats because Aussies are spending more time worrying about nature killing you :P
sorry i had to say it
Apology accepted. There’s always SOMEONE. ;)
at least you have a good sense of humor about it
I made it so the threads only go 10 deep because I didn’t think they’d often go on that long, but it happens enough I could probably make it go to 15 or 20 if I can mess with the indent in the CSS a bit.
Personally I think the 30,000+ number of gun deaths is a valid one because like Yorp, I think the cause of the death is largely irrelevant. It’s easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun than it is a knife and it’s easier to commit suicide with a gun than it is a bottle of pills. You can pump a stomach if you get there in time, you can’t put a brain back together.
The argument that more people die in car accidents than die from guns isn’t a sensible position for a number of reasons. Most people spend probably 5 to 10 hours a week in their car depending largely on their commute and weekend activities, most people don’t spend nearly that much time handling firearms. Sure there’s the odd hunting trip, but that’s a vanishingly small number compared to the people commuting or taking their kids to do whatever on the weekends. Even an ardent gun enthusiast probably spends an hour a week shooting his gun, and in a lot of cases he spends at least that much time traveling to and from the gun range. I’m suggesting that people spend 10 times as much time in their car as they do handling guns, especially when you factor in all the people who have never owned or handled a gun I think that’s an extremely conservative ratio. If people spent 1/10th the time driving it makes sense that the number of vehicle related deaths would drop to 1/10th of what they are at most given that there’s that much less opportunity for something bad to happen.
The other difference that makes it very much and apples to oranges comparison, if not an apples to ‘lump of igneous rock’ comparison is that cars are designed to be safe, where as guns are made to injure. Yes if an irresponsible or homicidal person gets their hands on either one they’re going to be dangerous, but you can say that about anything. I’m pretty sure I could bludgeon someone to death with a wooden cutting board if I wanted to.
I’m not against the idea of guns, but if you’re going to own a gun, I say it has to be well regulated. Much better regulated than it is now with all the loopholes in background checks like at gun shows. I’m also for actually empowering the ATF to do their thing, where as Republicans have blocked the ATF from actually having a director for the last 7(?) years and do basically anything they can to make it as toothless an agency as they can. I think it makes it impossible for the party to talk about responsible gun ownership when they do stuff like that.
Actually I think the ATF should be disbanded as an agency, A should go under the FDA, T should go under the DEA and F should go under the FBI. I don’t know why we need so many different agencies and the inherent bureaucracy and inefficiencies that come with them.
Just to be clear
I made the car accident argument as an example of a logical fallacy – not as a serious indictment on people driving cars. :)
DaveB: “Actually I think the ATF should be disbanded as an agency, A should go under the FDA, T should go under the DEA and F should go under the FBI. I don’t know why we need so many different agencies and the inherent bureaucracy and inefficiencies that come with them.”
Reason – it’s almost always impossible to kill a bureaucracy (unfortunately).
But what you said there makes perfect sense, although I personally think alcohol and tobacco should both go under the FDA, rather than Tobacco going under the DEA (since both tobacco and alcohol are legal, and the DEA handles criminal enforcement, not regulatory duties like the FDA does)
Yorp:
PS, again apparently I didnt make it very clear, but the ‘make cars illegal’ thing is an example of a logical fallacy. The idea that cars cause a lot of death and injuries does not mean they should be illegal – just properly regulated (and there are many laws on the books for car safety). The same can be said for guns (and there are many laws on the books for gun safety). Guns need to be properly regulated as well (and they are). The death count of around 32,000 does not mean they are from violent crimes, any more than the death count for cars means that the cars are from violent crimes for that total number.
That’s what I mean when I say ‘skewed numbers’ – I’m not saying it in some cruel or vindictive manner to you. I’m saying it in the ‘statistics’ definition of ‘skewed’.’
I think you might have taken what I said as some sort of personal slam on you. Also, there’s a TON to read in these comments, so forgive me if I havent read every last thing that you wrote (or other people wrote). By the time I read everything it will probably be next week’s update.
PanderYou are so right! Cars are an illogical phallusy.
And how could I take it personally? All we are doing is discussing ways to make the world a better place. My suggestions just advocate options that kill less Americans…
I could have lived my entire life without ever seeing that link, and I would have been happy.
Besides, they made a world where they got rid of anything which is potentially dangerous for you and made it all illegal.
And it was called Demolition Man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puM1eT15NYw
And what do you get with a world like that? You get a 47 year old virgin sitting around in his stained pajamas drinking a banana broccoli shake and singing singing I’m an Oscar Mayer Weiner. That’s what you get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizGkM6gbvQ
A big part of it is the difference in gun culture. Americans always go on about the need to have guns to defend themselves. I bet that kind of attitude is not so pervasive in Australia?
Which, whether my guess is right or not, the statistics would seem to support:
Australia gun ownership per capita: 15% America: 88.8%
However I am confident that your police mortality figures will be higher when compared to UK police. Accidental gun discharges being one aspect. But also police are bringing guns into close proximity to criminals. Which is bound to go wrong periodically, until we have firearms that will only work for their owner,
Yes, gun culture is far far less of a thing in Australia.
There are enthusiasts, sure, and some of those undoubtedly feel the laws are too restrictive as they are. Just as there are also some who maintain that the laws are not restrictive enough (surprise, surprise). But I suspect that many Aussies think the US’s mindset on guns is …. well, I better not say more because commenting on other people’s religions never goes well.
Just wanted to mention, the cities with the strictest gun control laws in the US (cities like NYC, Chicago, etc) – also happen to have some of the highest murder rates in the country.
I agree there’s a gun culture in the USA, but I don’t think it’s a problem. Besides, Aussies are tough enough to use a knife to gut a croc and are used to life and death struggles just going for a drive, according to the Crocodile Dundee and Mad Max movies, which is where I get all my information about Australia.
Trouble is Pander that cities do not have big walls surrounding them, with checkpoints searching all vehicles entering for weapons. Well other than Jerusalem anyhow. And then they just dig tunnels.
It is too depressing looking up the statistics on this again. But it is something like 100,000 Americans being killed by guns alone per annum. That is a problem.
Whilst people might say ‘well that is comparable to car crashes or heart attacks’ that is true(ish). However society is introducing self-driving cars, which will, in the fullness of time, allow us to reduce those instances dramatically. Likewise we are making steady progress on treatment of all diseases.
Gun crime though, in places where it it falsely considered to ‘not be a problem’ steadily worsens. And that includes in the UK, so it is not just me having a go at the USA. In areas where gang culture starts to build up, there is a migration from knife crime to gun crime.
Where active community policing is enacted, and social policies are put in place to improve conditions, such that gang culture is not needed or seen as the ‘only thing to do’, then it can be countered. Not that we ever see much of the social policy side of the equation, even in the UK.
Not that I am suggesting that such would be of much use in the USA. Americans want their guns. Which results in a massive mortality rate. Putting a band aid on that will not help. But, pretending that it does not cause problems? Sorry, that is just self-delusion.
Not that I object to Americans wanting to shoot dead 100,000 Americans a year. It is your country and your countrymen. If y’all feel that such is a good price to pay, in order to maintain your national values, then y’all have every right!
@Pander How does that compare with population density?
Lot easier to bug each other in NYC than out in the boonies of New Mexico.
Those percentages are misleading, because even though there are 318.9 million people living in America, the number of those that own any gun is far less than 88.8%. The problem with “per capita” figures is that it might be one person owning 10, 20, even 30 guns.
This, in turn, makes it seem like 283.2 million (~88%) Americans own guns, when the actual percentage that do own guns is significantly lower. For example: My father was a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (when he joined, the NRA was very different from what they are today. Nowadays they seem to believe that it ought to be legal for a civilian to own an assault rifle.) On top of that, I’m ex-military. You’d think that if anyone owned a gun, it’d be someone like me… but I don’t own a gun, because I don’t feel a need for it, and I’m not a hunter.
Now, I understand the necessity for guns in places like Alaska, where the majority of citizens do own a gun. Bears don’t always respect boundaries, and I’d rather not get attacked by a bear on my way to take a poop in the outhouse. Also, in some really remote areas of Alaska, hunting is the major source of food for many families.
On the other hand, I don’t see the need for anyone (not even in Alaska) to own an assault weapon, or to have a magazine with more than ten bullets. If you can’t kill a deer with ten bullets, then either something is very wrong with your gun, or you should reconsider your career as a hunter.
MSpears
1) when you are answering to something way back, name would help.
2) before you call numbers like that a lie, you should confirm the source of this information.
So yorp, where did you get those numbers from? everyone knows Americans like their guns, but apparently someone don’t believe what you say. how do you defend yourself from such accusation?
R:
I am not calling his numbers a lie. I am calling them MISLEADING. There is a difference. His source, by the way, is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
If you say that “88.8% of Americans own a gun”, that is a lie.
If you say that “per capita, America has 88.8% gun ownership”, that’s true, but it is misleading, because ALL IT MEANS is that there are 283.2 million guns in a population of 318.6 million. It does NOT mean that 283.2 million people actually own a gun!
Just to follow on to what I was saying previously:
Take a look at this table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
If you do the math, it shows that in actuality, less than 40% of Americans (on average) own a gun. The problem is that some of that 40% owns more than one gun. I know at least one person who owns about 20 guns!
THAT is why Yorp’s data is misleading. It makes it look like 88% of Americans own a gun, when in fact, they don’t. As I said, “88.1% per capita” ONLY means that there are 283.2 million guns (approximately) for a population of 318.6 million.
I was indicating the ratio between Australia and the USA. Using a single source (as MSpears linked), compiled with the same methodology. It was the difference between the two figures which was significant.
If you feel that ‘the number of people who own guns’, is more important than ‘the total number of guns in private hands’, then please feel free to provide that information. I don’t see that it would make any great difference to my point. And doubt that it would be a hugely different ratio, between the two countries, for that matter.
Plus the thought of a large arsenal of guns falling into criminal hands, through a single burglary is not a hugely comforting one.
Hey, Yorp, I agree with you. There are too many guns in private hands in the U.S., in my opinion. I was actually taking issue with R, because HE said that *I* said that your information was a lie. Which it isn’t. Merely misleading, if someone takes it out of context.
its very easy to get things out of context…
if the mislead is intentional, than it might as well be an out right lie.
but if its just a miscommunication then i guess i am guilty of making assumptions… sry.
Apology accepted. :)
It was just a miscommunication, that’s all. I wasn’t accusing Yorp of taking information out of context; I didn’t want anyone else to see his numbers and come to the incorrect conclusion that almost 90% of Americans own guns.
Yorp: Er…. 100,000 people a year are not being killed by guns in the US.
You do realize that’s a false statistic, right?
@Pander Agreed. The statistic has an extra 0.
In 2010 it was about 10,000 gun homicides, according to the FBI.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
The homicide rate in the US (per 10,000 people) is about 4.7. Half again the European average.
R No probs. My posts can tend to get very long. So I attempt to cut down the caveats, qualifiers, explanations and exemptions I list. Trying only to post them when relevant to the points I am discussing.
MSpears Fair enough, given the other discussions going on.
Pander
I did very clearly say it was an approximation, from memory. Whilst it turns out not to be as accurate as I would have liked, it is not out by an order of magnitude, as claimed by Huttj509.
Ok, on with the depressing.
In 2011 the USA had 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population.
The population of the USA in 2011 was 311.7 million.
311,700,000 / 100,000 * 10.3 = 32,105 American deaths, by firearm, in one year
Trying to claim that it should be a third of that figure is itself misleading, as that involved only quoting the homicide deaths. Accidental death and suicide should very much be incorporated.
Even though suicides can be committed by other means (and such are not included here), they typically require some delay or preparation. For instance buying a bottle of sleeping pills, or driving to a bridge. Which gives some time for reflection and a possible change of mind.
Further many suicide attempts are a call for help. And a number of the methods used for such can be survivable, given prompt treatment. Guns much less so.
So I am perfectly happy to stand by that figure. And I still feel that it is a wholly unacceptable number of avoidable deaths. But reiterate that I do respect your right to decide that it is a good price to pay, to uphold your values.
Yorp: “I did very clearly say it was an approximation, from memory. Whilst it turns out not to be as accurate as I would have liked, it is not out by an order of magnitude”
Still, saying 100,000 gun deaths, when it’s 10,000 (which is less than half the deaths of countries that have very heavy gun control, actually, like in Europe), is offering a skewed viewpoint.
As is your statistic of 10.3 deaths per 100,000. There were not 32,105 deaths by firearms in 2011. Your statistics are overstated, sorry. Also, of the 10,000 deaths, there are a significant number are not from a criminal enterprise even – suicide, accidents, etc. Not to mention police being shot by criminals, or criminals who shoot other people with illegally obtained guns (so no amount of gun control will stop that).
Plus… there are literally MANY… MANY MANY more deaths from vehicles by a large amount, but we arent making cars illegal. There are more stabbings than deaths by firearms, but pretty most knives are legal (and even in states and municipalities where certain knives are illegal, like spring-loaded knives and double bladed knives, people still manage to stab each other).
I believe we should call for an end to using cars. In 2013 alone, 10.345 people per 100,000 died from cars. Which by your calculations do come out to 32,000+ deaths by cars. Plus there were over 5.5 million INJURIES from cars. Many of which are permanently debilitating injuries. Make cars illegal please. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Btw, before anyone else points it out, when I say “which is less than half the deaths of countries that have very heavy gun control, actually, like in Europe” I mean ‘countries, like in many different countries in Europe, or the population of Europe as compared to the population of the United States’
I’m fully aware that Europe is a continent, and not a country.
Although I could also argue about the ‘European Union’ being similarly a loose collection of states as the United States is a collection of states …. if I wanted to.
Which I’m not actually doing. But I could if I wanted to :)
Yorp, I usually find you to be a voice of reason and good argument, but your gun statistics are heavily skewed. Here are the actual numbers. There are around 32,000 gun deaths per year in the USA. Of those over 60% are suicides.
The effective gun homicide rate is about 10,000-11,000 per year in the US. To put that in perspective STDs kill 20,000 per year, car crashes kill 40,000, Alcohol poisoning kills over 80,000, preventable medical accidents kill over 200,000, and smoking kills over 400,000.
Test:
Are we at the thread limit? Because my reply is not being shown, when I try to submit it.
Ok Pander, I am sorry to say I now have more sympathy with R for calling you out as a liar.
By the time you made this comment I had very clearly clarified that it is 32,105. As such, you are wilfully misrepresenting my comments, for your own ends. And I dispute that it was a skewed viewpoint. It was an approximation, from memory, given in good faith. Which I subsequently corrected to an exact figure.
I will not pander to your tactic. I have no interest in playing “who said what when”. That has no relevance to the ongoing debate. Let us draw a line under this, cease to harp on about it, and go by the true figures.
___________________________
No what I am doing is offering the number of deaths caused by firearms in the USA. You are trying to counter with a completely different figure, which is the murders by firearms. They are not the same thing.
Yes, yes there were. Again R‘s complaint that you choose to ignore links has been substantiated. But, just in case you missed it, here it is in full:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You will see that the figure I quoted, for use in my calculation is there. It and the result of my calculation are sound.
As for why I choose that figure, is because it removes all subjective massaging of figures. Excuses for why the person was killed are irrelevant. It does not matter whether the gun was fired accidentally. It does not matter if there was intent to murder. It does not matter who was holding the gun. Or whether they were pointing it at themselves. What matters is that somebody died as a result.
TheCrimsonF*cker please note the above paragraph also serves as a response for your point. Plus please refer to my earlier post for other reasons why I feel it is pertinent to include suicides. Also kindly bear in mind that any one of us could come down with depression, at some point in our lives.
Should I find a suicidal urge coming over me, it would take some time to put together some means of putting it into action. By which time, hopefully, I will have reconsidered.
For you (given the comment you made about always being ready to shoot any intruder) clearly all it would take is picking up your weapon (possibly loading it), and pulling the trigger. You get no second chances. Which makes me sad.
Let us hope this debate does not get even more depressing! Depression leads to suicide. Suicide leads to less Grrl Power readers!
This absolutely should be taken into account when discussing the differences between a country with a gun culture and one without.
Cool, we are of a like mind.
Heavy investment in environmentally friendly public transport is both good for the planet and to reduce our risk of day to day mortality. Technology can help us here, too, as I already mentioned. We can support the use of self-driving cars (once we are satisfied as to their reliability). But, significantly much transport research and development is aimed at reducing mortality rates.
Sadly the reverse applies with weapons. Although once weapons can reliably be biometrically keyed to their owners, then we can reduce the risk of unauthorised folk gaining impromptu access to weapons at least. So some hope, but mostly it goes the other way.
“By the time you made this comment I had very clearly clarified that it is 32,105. As such, you are wilfully misrepresenting my comments, for your own ends. And I dispute that it was a skewed viewpoint.”
My point is of the 32,105, a significant portion (approximately 60%) are NOT from violent crimes. You cannot treat a suicide or a hunting accident in the same way as a person who goes out, robs, and shoots someone. I’m not saying YOU’RE skewing things. I’m saying the statistics you are using are skewed in that it’s ignoring (not you ignoring – the statistics you are using) a significant factor.
Lets be friends. :)
Yay! Another confirmed friend.
*hugs Pander*
As a friend, let me tell you a secret. I am biassed. The reason why I am saying this is to minimise the risk of friends dying! It does not comfort me, when mourning friends, that they died from suicide,* rather than murder. My priority is to keep as many of them alive as possible.
Guns are optimised killing machines, which work at their most efficient when placed inside the mouth, and pointed at the brain. Given that method is twice as likely to kill any given friend, of mine, as them being murdered by a gun, I want that statistic to stay in.
If they wish to commit suicide, I want them to have longer to reconsider. Plus, if they still go ahead, I want a chance for them to be discovered and saved. I do not want the only option to be a bucket and a sponge, to scrape their brains off the wall!
You are allowed to have a contrary opinion to me on that, of course. But it will not change my mind.
* In fact, if they are Catholics, I understand that is a ‘go straight to Hell’ offence. So I would be significantly sadder to loose a Catholic friend to suicide. Likewise for friends of any faith which held it to have particularly harsh consequences.
Australia gun ownership per capita: 15% America: 88.8%
1) As everyone knows, Australians don’t need guns. They kill crocodiles with knives, or by headbutting them, or by staring at them until they die of intimidation. Guns are for sissies to Australians. Unless you’re in a car in a post apocalyptic world, in which case you should have a gun. But it usually doesnt need to be loaded.
2) I’m…. again not certain about your numbers, because 88.8 percent seems…. really high. Especially since I don’t own a gun, no one in my family owns a gun (except one of my cousins, who’s a police officer), and I know one person of everyone I know who does own a gun (again, other than my cousin who has one because he’s a police officer), who is a friend of my family
Yorp:
“Yay! Another confirmed friend.”
Have another scooby snack.
“The reason why I am saying this is to minimise the risk of friends dying!”
Although removing legal guns doesnt actually minimize the risk of people dying. The cities with the most strict gun control laws in the US are also the cities that have the highest gun-related deaths and crime rates.
“It does not comfort me, when mourning friends, that they died from suicide,* rather than murder. My priority is to keep as many of them alive as possible.”
That’s… actually a fair point. Although a person who tries to commit suicide has a lot of different, very quick, very efficient options, regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
“Guns are optimised killing machines,”
I can’t argue with that, since… well… they are.
“which work at their most efficient when placed inside the mouth, and pointed at the brain.”
Pretty much anything placed in the mouth and pointed at the brain is going to be pretty efficient at killing you if you thrust it quickly into the brain. Pretty sure that jumping off a roof is also pretty efficient. Eliminating the existence of guns are not going to change that, or even minimize it.
“Given that method is twice as likely to kill any given friend, of mine, as them being murdered by a gun, I want that statistic to stay in.”
Agreed. But also you should probably agree that if there were no guns, the suicide rate would very likely be the same level. Access to guns does not change the rate of suicide.
“If they wish to commit suicide, I want them to have longer to reconsider.”
For those who attempt suicide on a whim, it’s not making a difference whether using a gun, a knife, jumping out of a window, overdosing on pills, hanging themselves, electrocution, etc.
For those who attempt suicide while thinking about it, its…. again not going to make a difference whther using a gun, a knife, jumping out of a window, overdosing on pills, hanging themselves, electrocution, etc.
“Plus, if they still go ahead, I want a chance for them to be discovered and saved.”
That’s definitely admirable. I just don’t see it actually changing anything whether there are legal guns or not.
“You are allowed to have a contrary opinion to me on that, of course.”
See, this is why I generally prefer talking to you than to R.
Well. This thread escalated excrutiatingly slowly and painfully. Let’s stop now. This is a comment thread for grrlpower, not a forum. I enjoy some of these side conversations, but this one has gotten too long and meandering to even follow.
R, it’s *never* the person who fired the shot that investigates it. That’s why the police have Internal Affairs. It’s their job to investigate Every. Single. Time. a policeman discharges his firearm when it’s not on a firing range.
There are more good ones, R. The bad ones account for 1% (or less) of the police force. It isn’t “aiding and abetting” when it’s the truth.
even if its just 1% ITS STILL THERE!
and maybe its not literally THE person that fired, but if your friend is investigating your case, he will may change it to your favor. its pretty much the same, it is what seems to be happening.
i am not saying ALL policeman have to be punished for the few, but the few are still there and they should be, just as should all those who did nothing towards it and even hide the evidence or pretend that nothing happen.
they may be few, but THEY, ARE, THERE!!!
will you ignore a terrible doctor just because most of them are excellent?
will you ignore a women who became a firefighter solely due to “equality”?
will you ignore a judge that takes bribes, just because others do not?
will you leave the bad apple in the basket because all the other are fresh?
OBVIOUSLY NOT! ITS GOING TO ROT THE OTHER ONES AS WELL!!!
First of all: Internal Affairs is nobody’s friend. They’re not there to be a friend. They’re there to determine if you’ve done something wrong. Every police officer dreads being investigated by IA, because IA assumes “guilty until proven innocent”. Also, any time IA does an investigation, the officer being investigated is suspended from duty until the investigation is over, one way or the other.
I’m not saying there aren’t bad cops, and I’m not saying they shouldn’t be punished if they do something wrong. There’s bad people in every field. Bad cops, bad lawyers, bad attorneys, bad cashiers, bad cooks, bad programmers, bad finance managers. But they are the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.
You have to keep in mind that what is happening has nothing to do with a cop being bad. It has everything to do with the thugs trying to scare the police out of their neighborhood so the thugs can do whatever they want.
Think about this: A policeman’s job is to prevent crime. In order to do that, he has to go where the crime actually IS. And in this case, more often than not, it’s predominantly-black areas, where thugs are everywhere. These thugs have people on their payroll that any time a policeman does anything even slightly sketchy, they call them up and say “Go make trouble” (meaning protests and riots, which will be covered by the news media, who only care about a sensational story.)
If the police can be scared to the point they won’t go into those neighborhoods, for fear of a media circus and/or death threats, THE THUGS WIN.
” Affairs is nobody’s friend. They’re not there to be a friend. They’re there to determine if you’ve done something wrong. Every police officer dreads being investigated by IA, because IA assumes “guilty until proven innocent”.”
or, at least that’s how it is supposed to be.
i don’t live in us so i can’t say for sure how it works, but neither should you unless you are personally familiar with the job and environment.
And even if you did, you can still only speak for your own region.
i have seen 4 vids of police being the villain, and from what i hear only one of them actually got suspended, so yeah “guilty until proven innocent” much huh.
I do live in the U.S., and while I am not currently a police officer, one of my jobs was as a civilian advisor to the police department, so I am personally familiar with the environment.
Policemen who fire their guns while on duty (and not on the firing range) are always suspended while Affairs investigates. This is not a regional thing. That is how it is done in the entire country.
If those four officers were tried in a court of law, then I would point out that it is a civilian jury that found three of them “not guilty”, which means that the prosecution was unable to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the officer did anything wrong.
P.S., I said that Internal Affairs assumes “guilty until proven innocent”. When… or maybe I should say if… it gets to the courts, it is “innocent until proven guilty”.
1) i can believe that it is how its “supposed” to be.
but i will not believe if you say that entire country is checked by a single unit.
there is no way one office would be enough to cover ALL of it.
so even if they are supposed to follow the exact same rules and procedures, there have to be different people overseeing different areas.
just because you and your friends are doing a fine job doesn’t mean everyone is.
2) i said 4 vids, i didn’t say how many officers there were.
-first was an entire squad attacking a homeless.
i want to hear how he was a threat to them.
-second was a pair of cops driving by a random person.
he apparently had as “soft air gun” (if i remember it correctly) it was still a bit… harsh
-third was a gang of cops incapacitating a random black man.
-the 4th was the cop that shot a man running away 8 times in the back.
only got caught because someone hid and stealthily recorded it.
-now add all those who knew and did nothing and you get quite a number.
3)… so you are saying that they are guilty… until they get to the court?
1) I never said it was a single unit. Please do not put words in my mouth; it is rude and insulting. Every police department has its own Internal Affairs unit. But there are federal standards that they all share in common.
2)
-The entire squad attacking a homeless man: Those cops have since been charged with murder.
-Pair of cops driving by a random person with a “soft air gun”: From a distance, the gun looked like a real gun. Police are not, and should not, be required to verify that a gun is fake before they take action. That’s a good way to get a lot of policemen killed. (having said that, they should not just open fire without first giving the person a chance to put the gun down and surrender. But keep in mind that if the person points the gun at them, they will probably still shoot, out of self-defense.)
In the third and fourth cases, I am in complete agreement with you. That was excessive force.
3) No, I am saying that the United States court system always assumes someone is innocent until proven guilty (or at least, that’s how it’s supposed to work).
Here’s the short version:
(1) Internal Affairs assumes the cop is guilty until proven innocent, and removes him from active duty until their investigation is complete. If they decide no wrongdoing was committed, he returns to active duty.
(2) If they determine that he violated police procedure, they turn their evidence over to the District Attorney. The District Attorney then reviews the evidence and decides if he can make a case against the police officer.
(3) If he feels he has a case, then the police officer is put on trial. In court, it’s not about what you know, it’s about what you can PROVE. Internal Affairs THINKS he’s guilty; now they have to PROVE, to a civilian jury, that he’s guilty.
1) you said its not regional.
if its not a single unit, therefore what i said afterwards.
2) i am glad that you agree about the “soft gun” thing being excessive.
But there is more to that.
If it was real, and he was ready to use it, he could have shot them.
even if he wasn’t intending to use it, if it was real he could panic and accidentally shot someone. it was not only excessive, but also reckless in my opinion.
but saying that, i do not mean “ignore it”. just that they should do i carefully.
also, i guess my info was a bit outdated about those cases.
3) so nothing too out of the ordinary.
4) i think this may be as far as this conversation go.
you are going to keep saying “we have standards” and i will to that every time answer “don’t assume everyone obeys it”
unless you or someone else have something else to add i think that’s it for this conversation.
I believe, in fact, that is pretty much what I was saying about that case. For obvious reasons police do need to be careful anytime someone has a gun (even if it turns out later to be an airsoft gun or a toy gun). But I totally agree that “being careful” does not mean “shoot first and ask questions later”.
As far as the gang of cops subduing a black man… I vaguely remember that case, though I don’t remember how many cops there were. While (in my opinion) it doesn’t quite qualify as “excessive force“, it was definitely excessive. Does it really take that many cops to subdue one person?
And the guy who got shot in the back… well, that one ended up with the cop being charged for murder, and the police in that city having to make an agreement with the federal government that put severe restrictions on what they cannot do. For example, they can NOT fire a warning shot into the air, they can NOT pursue someone simply for running away from them (unless they actually caught him in the act of committing a crime), and so on.
So… in summary, yeah, your information was a little out of date on some of those cases. I can excuse that, though, since you don’t live in the U.S. I would ask, though, that you shouldn’t just take those videos at face value. Sometimes there is more to it than just what you see on Youtube.
“For example, they can NOT fire a warning shot into the air,..”
yeah, it doesn’t take a genius to get a vision of that bullet striking someone a block over.
as for YT, i think its just as reliable as watching news in TV.
also, it was a 2 month old vid.
I wish I could say I disagree with you, but I can’t. Not completely. The media is entirely too willing to present a video out of context, or carefully set up a shot to make it look like a protest contains hundreds of people when it’s actually only ten or twenty.
Still, the point stands: A video on YT does not usually show the full context, without which you cannot make an informed judgement about what it’s showing you. Be careful about jumping to conclusions about what you’re seeing, that’s all I’m saying, because there may be facts that you are unaware of that would lead to a completely different conclusion.
There is a sound reason why tanks are equipped with machine guns in addition to the main gun.
Using a sledgehammer to swat a fly is not only overkill, but too difficult as well – you will break the table the fly sat on, and the insect will have enough time to escape before you swing the heavy piece of metal down :)
Would be kind of interesting to see if Sidney’s got some sort of precision upgrade to the PPO that would make it as useful at close range as a pistol or as deadly accurate as a sniper rifle.
If she get precision aiming on the PPO, she might start referring to it as her Omega Beams.
Walking on the Darkseid a little, are we?
;)
No, I didn’t even need to look at your link…My nerd credentials have been confirmed.
If the PPO was an Omega Sanction, it would be able to do a lot more than just blow stuff up :) It could incinerate, freeze, teleport, send stuff back in time, send stuff forward in time, bring the dead back to life, create the impulse to sing showtunes, tie your shoelaces, and whatever else the author decides it can do at the moment. :)
I do so prefer how they handled it in the animated movies and JLU cartoon.
I swatted a fly with a battleaxe once…
Now you need to kill a flea with a bazooka. Forward! Ever forward!
Reminds me of some of the “Path of the Hunter” challenges in Far Cry 3. One of them is to hunt rabid dogs with an RPG (talk about overkill). Two others involve hunting dogs (not even rabid ones) and leopards with a flamethrower…
I consider those three to be the most difficult challenges in the game due to the possibility of friendly fire (read: blowing yourself up, or burning to death in a grass fire caused by your flamethrower). Fortunately, in a video game, Death is a Slap on the Wrist.
And don’t forget the pony-nuke for that mouse infestation…
Al Bundy once engaged in overkill over a mouse. It didnt work out well for him either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52seudeQOI
Think of it the other way around:
With the pistol she would have a response of force between “punch/ball maneuver” and “PPO”.
So short to mid term it would make her less dangerous for her surroundings.
It’s all about giving the chaos a save/less dangerous exit vent, that way you won’t get the explosion.
you Do realise that using the lighthook is the less lethal option to using any handgun by several degrees of magnitude right? It can apply force from gentle to overwhelming (for any normal person at least) in precise ways in more or less the shift of a comic frame, we know its fast enough to let her yoink three women away from a dinner table they where all seated at in various positions, heck I do belive two where on her left and one on her right. If she had wanted to she could doubtless have restrained them completely in more or less the same time. I’d love to see the applications of a handgun that can produce like results using techniques not effective Only within the purview of a comic book/movie or someone with actual gun-based superpowers.
In short: if Sydney ever has to subdue someone without killing them? She should go for her lighthook, if she potentially needs to kill them? Gun. Not the other way around.
In short, the gun increases her options.
Before, Ball-fu, Lighthook, PPO.
Now, Ball-fu, lighthook, pistol (doesn’t have to fire it, just point and yell “freeze” usually works) and if all else fails, PPO.
In addition, having her be able to identify each and every part of the gun, being proficient in assembling, disassembling, and maintaining her weapon goes a long way into teaching proper firearm discipline which would do wonders with using the PPO.
Just mentioning, when her shield is up, a pistol isnt going to do much good to Sydney unless the bad guy is in the shield with her, which never happens…
… except with Shadow Boxer.
…um… and Vehemence.
Actually maybe Sydney should get a bigger gun, on second thought.
Lol.
Well, like everything else that’s new to any person, start small & work up from there. Apparently, that’s what Max is doing with Sydney.
;)
Considering that Sydney already has a WMD that can’t be separated from her, taking this path with guns will also help Sydney better handle the responsibility of consequences with her PPO. Sydney’s concerns are already forefront in her mind (as she revealed to Max before the steak house got level), so Max & Archon are giving her the best chance to deal with it in a responsible fashion.
Although when Sydney was in the shield with Shadow Boxer, or with Vehemence, it’s not like she was able to use the PPO against them, or the tentacle (plus even assuming she can use the PPO within the shield….. it would wind up frying her as well since she doesnt have the shield to protect her from the backlash)
Then again, a gun wouldnt have helped much against Vehemence anyway.
basicly the reason max has a pistol (ones finger or a nerf ball just don’t trigger the response)
I think another good option to give Sydney would be a Taser with a larger loop handle that she could operate with the light hook. She could safely approach someone while inside the shield and still use it if needed. If she needs more than one zap to persuade someone then the same thing could be achieved using something like a cattle prod.
I just got the image of Dabbler designing some sort of ‘Swiss army knife’ multi-tool that Sydney could use with the lighthook from inside the sphere. But then, she doesn’t like to share her toys.
Dabbler does not share her TECH. That doesn’t mean she won’t craft something with her Tech that is not itself beyond the techbase of the setting. She could make a superbly crafted 50 mm handgun that no one but Max could use because of the kick… Kind if makes you wonder who made Maxima’s special?
A 50mm handgun doesnt strike me as something that would be beyond human design capabilities – just not human USE capabilities.
Sort of a case in point – Hellboy’s gun would probably kill anyone else who tries to use it – or at least shatter their wrist (again – I don’t know technical stuff about guns, just the legal aspects), but in that comic, I don’t think there are aliens making the guns. :)
A firearm is her version of a less-lethal weapon.
I don’t think there would be any molecules of his body left to find, if someone said such a thing to Maxima
Well fine ash maybe not enough identity it ever was a body or even extract DNA from. If I were on the jury I don’t know if i could convict if it were witnessed and film. Not because cop but because when you disrespect a woman, you take your life and safety into your own hands.
Just women? That’s a very sexist statement.
A guy is much more likely to just hand you your ass. A woman (particularly a scorned one) can be downright vicious. Growing up the runt in a family with a sister and 9 female cousins (and 5 male ones), I’ve seen my share of battles. Electrocution and being hit by a car is less painful than what the girls dished out.
+1
and my empathy for what you experienced.
We are not vicious and I will find you and make you rue the day for claiming so!
Rue, i say! RUE!
(I’m kidding btw. Dont’ be scared.)
(because if you’re scared, your guard might be up and it will be more difficult for me to getcha)
you think you have anything my sister doesn’t or could think up something my sister didn’t (shudder at memories) I know not to drop my guard around females ever.
I’m a lawyer. I’ll think of something.
Muahahahaha.
i have to agree with faust….i have had men and women disrespect me in the same way and if it were not for my thick skin i would have been pretty pissed off matter of fact before i grew the thick skin i used to get into a lot of fights because of it.
Actually I’ll admit that men do tend, at least on average, to hold less of a grudge than women do – again, on AVERAGE.
Not that I’ve taken a poll or anything. I just see how my male cousin act after an arugment vs how my two female cousins act after an argument.
I won’t use myself or my brother because my brother is, if anything, capable of holding a grudge a LOT longer than me (I know people who have said things about me or my mother years ago where he still refuses to talk to them anymore as a result, even after me or my mom have forgiven them). Plus … I’m almost certainly going to be biased about any view of if I hold grudges. Which I do :) They just usually don’t last for years.
when you disrespect ANYONE, you take those into your own hands.
Isn’t that Photographer Stan Lee?
some similarities but no
Agreed. Much too slim, young and sleazy.
Pretty sure he would not do cameos outside of Marvel settings anyhow. Maybe if they licensed Wolverine to come and date Halo?
I hereby remind you of Princess Diaries 2.
You may now despair.
Haven’t seen that, or the first one for that matter. But duly note the cameo.
Not sure if it involves any despairing though, unless those movies were cringemakingly awful? I rather enjoy spotting him doing his cameo thing. Likewise Hitchcock, in his day.
Lesser known factoid. Stan Lee is now the highest grossing film maker of all time. Thanks to getting an executive producer credit on every Marvel movie. Even the ones where he did not create the characters.
Spielberg is fighting back though. Using dinosaurs. So he may pull ahead again this summer.
Okay, so I know you mean that Spielberg is making a run for the producer title when you say he’s fighting back.
But I can’t help but think MCU versus dinosaurs.
… Which, come to think of it, could happen depending on the inclusion of certain parts of Marvel comic canon…
I’ve seen Jurassic World (awesome BTW), and I think the next sequel should be Jurassic War. Militarized dinosaurs fighting World War III. Marvel characters would fit right in. :-)
I’m not hopeful about Jurassic World. It’s like each sequel for that franchise just gets worse and worse.
First one was good – even though the kids are irritating.
Second one had this in your face PETA style message and a few dozen plot holes. Free the friendly dinosaurs! oh wait they just ate a bunch of people. Bring the baby T-Rex into the trailer! Oh wait, the parents are now here to kill us. Oh good, they just killed the one SMART and helpful person and left the rest of us dummies alive. Nostalgia Critic did a pretty good job of covering a lot of them.
The third was was…. just awful. Just…. so very terrible. They killed the T-Rex in 11 seconds so we could watch Mr Duckface Dinosaur instead, who can burst through a metal reinforced fence, but not through a tiny door, or a mostly-glass building. The raptors became hyperintelligent beings, rather than ‘dog level intelligence’ pack hunters (which was what they claimed in the first movie). The pteradon bridges are simultaneously flimsy yet can support the weight of pteradons. The two hired mercenaries get killed within a minute, and the only bright person in the group has his neck broken by the aforementioned hyperintelligent raptors – one of whom has a mohawk, like he’s Spike from Gremlins or something. The only way it could have been saved would have been if Tea Leoni’s character was ripped to shreds as soon as she was yelling with that megaphone.
Now… Jurassic World. I want to be hopeful because Chris Pratt is awesome, but when I hear ‘Indominus Rex’ and ‘he’s killing for sport’ and ‘I’m the pack leader of the raptors’ – I’m concerned. People are telling me it’s awesome though so I’m of course going to see it :)
Me, I am more…
Wow, who did the dinosaur casting? And some of the shots make it feel like you could reach out and touch them!
Obviously though you would not want to do that. Keep your arms firmly at your sides at all times. Sticking your arm through the fourth wall could result in loss of extremities!
But yea, crap scripts are irritating as hell.
By the way did you know that they have found remnants of dinosaur cells? Not talking fossilised. Actual surviving organic material!
They have not found DNA though. Yet.
I heard some sort of rumors about that. But I also heard scientists who debunked he feasibility of using those cells, and said that DNA basically has a shelf life and even dinosaur DNA, preserved in amber, would have degraded over millions of years. But I do remember seeing something on the Discovery Channel about them finding living cells in fossilized bones or something (which confused me, since I thought fossilized bones were rock, not actual bone). But that’s why I’m not a paleontologist.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/real-jurassic-park.htm
Seriously, go see it. The ending totally jumped the shark, but it was good in spite of that.
I’m setting a low bar. I just want it to be better than Jurassic Park 3.
So as long as the end doesnt involve the T-Rex, D-Rex, and the raptors all lining up in a chorus line to dance, proving that friendship and love is stronger than 65 million years of evolution, while Chris Pratt marries Jeff Goldbaum as the Pterodactyls soar majestically overhead, it probably will meet or surpass my expectations.
Stan Lee also did/does some work for Dark Horse comics. I remember that was the company that printed the comics resulting from the short lived reality TV show ‘Who Wants to be a Superhero’.
Three seasons is not “short lived” except by Dr. Who and I Love Lucy standards.
Not long enough for syndication, however. (The “magic number” for syndication is 100 episodes, which is about four and a half seasons.)
There was a 3rd season? After the crappy 2nd season I had not heard anything more about it.
First season only worked because the contestants didn’t know what was really being tested and anyone interested in competing in would have watched season 1.
Nah, looks more like Terry Richardson to me. Who actually does have a bit of a reputation as a sleazy photographer IRL.
https://cdn1.relevantmediagroup.com/sites/default/files/field/thumbnail/terry-richardson-le-photographe-adore-des.jpg
Funny DaveB, before I saw your remark I thought he looked like a skanky Stan Lee lol
No, I just tried to make him look as sleazy as possible since this is how Maxima is envisioning it. I think it’s the mustache and glasses that give him the Stan Lee vibe.
would be much more fun if you made it a true Stan Lee cameo :p fitting the superhero thing
this guy would be the worst place for that cameo though.
I think Stan could pull the performance off successfully…After all (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8m-NxpUIP0), he IS the Master.
Yes. Stan Lee is the master….
of PARKOUR!
https://youtu.be/CwB_4-QFnmM
Considering that Stan is also the co-creator of Spider-Man, he’s the one who taught Peter Parkour.
As the song states:
“Stan Lee.
He created f**king Spider-Man…
Wake up, Stan!”
Oh wait I get it. Peter Parker, Peter Parkour. +1 for you, Midnight!
Nah, not a +1…I should get the No-Prize for that.
:D
You will take your +1 for your bad pun and like it, Mister.
Nah man, have you seen him in Agents of Shield? Man’s got humor as others got air to breath!
“Nuff said, True Believer.”
Terry Richardson pretty much is the sleaziest photographer in the business. There have been accounts of him trying… and succeeding… in turning what had started as g-rated fashion shoots into x-rated porn shoots for his private collection. Here, links for reference. https://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/terry-richardson-interview.html https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/16/photographer-terry-richardson-sexual-harassment-accusations-response https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/17/terry-richardson-new-york-magazine-model
He does have to cameo in anything related to superheroes, I hear. Not sticking to just Marvel anymore
Pretty sure he’ll be in the Justice League movie as a school crossing guard.
i would watch the movie just to see that
I think there *was* a Stan Lee cameo at some point here, probably in another imaginary scene. However, it seems to me that this guy could be a more realistically drawn version of Doonesbury’s Uncle Duke. Who, of course, is based on Hunter S. Thompson.
Sydney is a wise woman, to not want to give herself a gun.
I wonder when we’ll see that thing in 1 piece. Both in comic time and real time. A few years in real time, or even a year in comic time?
Knowing her, she should have the parts identified by tomorrow. Assembly may take longer.
There were guns in like the first or second episode/chapter of one piece.
hey, Luffy and the crew can use ’em… they’re just capable of doing a hell of a lot more damage without them (Strong World and Film Z both have fight scenes they start out with guns, then drop them when they really get to work).
As that wise philosopher, Police Lieutenant Harry Callahan once said, “…. A man’s got to know his limitations…”
Does it count if she duct tapes the parts together?
+1 XD
Have Mythbusters tried to make a duct-tape gun yet?
I don’t know about handgun, but they did make a duct-tape cannon.
They made a duct tape cannon, which worked. And a cannon is technically a type of gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FDd3n10tjA
Sort of seems more like a mortar to be honest, but mortars are still quite deadly, and still seen a ‘type’ of firearm, from what I know.
Nope. To qualify as a firearm it would have to be man portable/firable. That would be an artillery or field piece. Also not a mortar. Mortars are designed to lob shells upward to strike distant targets from above. Cannons are designed to fire directly at the target to strike from the side.
Wouldnt that be a ‘sidearm’ rather than just a ‘firearm’?
Again – I dunno, you might be correct. I don’t know much about the technical stuff about guns. I’ve fired one a couple of times, but I live in New York City, and it’s pretty hard (ie, nearly impossible, plus really expensive) to get a gun permit here.
Yeah, i know about New York. For a long time you had a mayor who not only did his level best to ban all gun sales and ownership in the region but also started a national anti-gun group where he committed fraud and just blatantly lied to other mayors about their goals to get them to sign on so he could make it look like a huge coalition of mayors against guns. He repeatedly interfered in law suits and legislation in other states where guns were involved up to sending teams of lawyers at his own expense to help push for anti-gun legislation. Total nutjob.
On the terminology there’s a lot of slippage, but a firearm is technically any man portable weapon which can be held and fired and which uses a propellant to fire a projectile. A sidearm is a smaller gun kept as a secondary weapon, usually a pistol, and the word has roots going back to the companion dagger a knight would carry with his sword so that he could slip it between armor plates to coup-de-grace a defeated opponent.
We still have a mayor who’s a nutjob. Just a different mayor. We sort of went from one nutjob to another even worse nutjob (who pretty much has alienated the entire police force), who makes the last nutjob look sort of reasonable in comparison. And that’s saying something. It takes real skill to be a worse mayor than Bloomberg. I mean it takes major dedication to doing everything wrong. And I hated the last nutjob (the lying, money gouging, totalitarian-minded jerk that he was).
Where was I… oh yeah… ranting about politics. Thanks for the explanation about firearms btw. What would a mortar or a cannon be considered, if not firearms. Artillery? Also what about a ‘hand cannon’ – I remember seeing one of those being sold on Pawn Stars, which was basically a cannon that sort of looked like a gun.
They might be able to make a large, single-shot pistol or simple musket (blunderbuss?) using the same general concept. But it might be a bit of a let down after the cannon.
In the Grrl Power movie, that camera man would be a Stan Lee cameo.
Now that I would be down with. :-D
+1
but were are you going to find 5 identical women to play harem?
Through lengthy auditions of attractive slim blonde women. Thousands of them. Until you get enough close matches. It is a tedious process, but I realise that one must do one’s duty.
sonds like such an arduous task
But it would be a pleasant task to look forward to…In a matter of speaking.
Didn’t they find something like 12 Agent Smith look alikes for the Matrix movies?
With CGI and camera tricks, you don’t need lookalikes. One actress can easily play all 5 of her. Think of the Umpa-Loompas in the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake, or all the Agent Smiths in the Matrix movies.
Just remember Agent Smith from The Matrix, all fifty million of him :P
The clones in Orphan Black
I would suggest twins and three stunt/body doubles, particularly with the varied hair length. You could do it with one but for closeups with two, particularly if touching, so much easier to use twins. Hair and makeup will n be busy though.
Agent Smith and the Umpa Lumpas didn’t have five different styles of hair, makeup, and threads. A better example would be the 1996 movie “Multiplicity” where Michael Keaton played Doug Kinney, Doug Kinney, Doug Kinney, and Doug Kinney; often in the same scene.
You just call up Tatiana Maslany who is the star of Orphan Black. She plays at least 10 characters in that show and does it flawlessly. When you can play a character dressing up as another identical character, and you can tell exactly which character is pretending to be which, you have an actress who could play Harem without trying.
Not that I really love the show or anything…
The same way they did it with Orphan Black. One woman playing them all.
Also the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica, John Malkovich in that one scene in Being John Malkovich, the girl in United States of Tara (good example given there’s five of her and they all look and act completely different), that one guy in one of the X-Men movies, etc. Hell, Stephen Colbert used to do it on a regular basis and he had a pretty low budget comparatively. Point is it’s been done plenty of times without needing to cast quintuplets, so that’s hardly a barrier.
I have given your argument careful consideration and have come to the conclusion that I would prefer snuggling up with quintuplets. One blonde actress, and four TV screens showing footage of her, in other outfits, just does not offer the same result.
I know have Maxima vs terminator images in me head. Terminator doesn’t stand chance though.
I’m sure Max would derive some mild amusement from it by crushing it in to a cube.
The only one who could manage that faster than Max would be Magneto.
That would only work for the T-800 though. All the terminators after that didn’t have solid enough structures for that to occur.
The T-X had a skeletal frame.
The T-Rex 8000
Quick quick, call James Cameron and Steven Spielberg! I think I have an awesome script outline they will want to hear.
… Please don’t ruin Jurassic Park AND Terminator 2 for me in one fell swoop? I’ll agree to any past comment board debates we’ve ever had if you don’t do that to me.
Debates are not something to be won. They are simply a way to seek enlightenment. Ending a debate, without the advancement of knowledge would be a loss to humanity. And caninity.
Plus I would never hold a friend to ransom, to achieve such an end! Especially for something that you felt so passionate about too (and me for that matter).
*screws up script and throws it into the bin*
Hey, no, bad Stephen! And you James!
*slaps hands away from bin*
*throws match, igniting script in flames*
Don’t cry mates! The world is not ready for it yet.
Bless you.
Have another scooby snack.
So, the bag of parts…let’s see, there’s the handle, the thing that makes the badass “ch-chk” sound, the spring, and the tube.
Piece o’ cake!
its surprising how easy it is i have no experience with guns (im from the uk) and even i can tell you what most of the parts do even if i can’t name any of them
Field strip is one thing. All the small fiddly bits in detail strip are something else :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul_jMfyPq_8
Wow that video would have been helpful when I was drawing this page. I did find an exploded detail diagram that I worked from on a site that I guess sells individual screws and such.
My google-fu is greatest :)
Here’s a simplified flash animation of the parts of a M1911.
https://www.m1911.org/loader.swf
Actually, given Sydney’s merchandise re-packing ability (refer https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/136 ), I suspect that weapon disassembly/reassembly is something she can pick up fairly quickly. Seems to me that, conceptually, the two things are very similar.
field stripping a firearm is not difficult and should take at most one tool (that is typically part of the firearm anyways). i see the retention spring, barrel, rail body(the part most people would call the handle) and some pieces that should only ever be messed with by a licenced gun smith
I agree. Also, as the owner of a comic store that probably sells models, some of them need to be assembled to have a display model. Most ADD people have great focus and concentration when they are interested in something. If Sydney gets interested, she will have this down in no time. I wonder how many guns she can strip and reassemble (simultaneously) with her lighthook.
Interesting question, that last.
First: At this stage, it looks like she can generate only ONE light hook at a time. If she could create more in The Big Fight, she would have.
Second: Unsure, but I don’t THINK said lighhook can manifest digits (ie. fingers and thumbs). It can stretch, twine around the handle of something, then use what’s left for something else. So, with enough practice it could, say, hammer a nail or operate a power tool unaided; but I don’t know how well it would go at, say, picking up a small coin or disassembling a gun on its own. Possibly not too well.(at least until the right upgrade).
Possible upgrades for the lighthook skill tree. Multi-limb and fine manipulation.
Probably none. I don’t think it’s got the necessary fine manipulation capability. Too fat.
I don’t think a terminator would stand much of a chance versus Maxima. Sarah Connor is safe in her hands. Even a terminatrix would only have her concealment to protect her. As soon as she broke cover, she would find out that Maxima’s plasma exceeds blast furnace temperatures.
https://www.supermantv.net/articles/terminator/Terminator_Article_2.jpg
Pretty sure it will be a little less effective than it was against Superman. Because Maxima’s willing to just take the gloves off right away. :)
If they gave her a motivation out of a comic she could probably get most of that test down by the evening meal. Superman towed the Earth once, so she looked it up and memorized it.
Remind her that Captain America and Batman may not need pistols. Still know everything about them and she will try to become an expert on at minimum her sidearm.
And now I have the mental image of the mayhem caused by Sydney flinging shields and boomerangs during a battle.
She’s already good at dropping an Anvil on someone’s head…
Meep meep. Pthhbththbplthbthhbt!
I think captain America & Batman combined would be less frightening for villains than when Sydney decides to “go Looney Tunes” on them…
Loving the facial expressions and portraits on this page. Maxima’s is particularly nice. But my favourite is Sydney in panel six. Cute, cute … cute!
Mine is panel 5, for the same reason ^_^
(This cuteness was my first thought after mentally registering the whole page. And then I noticed that Max’ jacket has a rough leather structure. It’s more obvious to me here than in the previous page.)
Rough leather structure, but a soft smooth interior? ;)
So you are saying chewy on the outside, but crunchy on the inside?
That would be a way to loose a bunch of teeth.
Other way around: rough crunchy outer shell (will leave the inside to your imagination, and the lawsuit :P)
Assumptions:
I think she will open the bag and assemble it well under the time limit and set it down. Then she will take out her wallet and pull out her concealed weapon permit. She was a Tomboy. ADHD yes. Nothing helps focus more than concerned firearms instructors (her Dad say) and lots and lots of time on the range. It would even make sense of how hard it was to aim the PPO –:”This thing has no iron sight, no barrel and shoots where I am looking as I look. And it doesn’t just stop, you have to think stop at it”
If you were Sydney’s Dad there would be two items she would be well versed in control before she left to be on her own. The other is a car…
To fully meet expectations, she’d need to name each part and describe its function, which will most likely slow her down a bit.
I’d give her overnight for that if she was interested enough. Part of ADD and ADHD in many cases is an ability to Hyper-focus.
Which can be very annoying if you don’t have any alarms set and no clocks in constant view. I once started reading a book and 9 PM and didn’t realize what time it was until 1 AM
That particular subset is known as READD and afflicts more people than you know, If your argot problem is web comics it becomes WEBREADD… say like diving into the start of GrrlPower or Schlock Mercenary and coming up … Monday?
Argot == Target
(stupid spell checker)
I did that all the time with gaming. Nowdays I have a fancy keyboard that includes a small screen on it, which displays a clock. So it’s less bad now
Only once? Lucky you. I do that sort of thing far too often, which is why I try not to pick up a book in the evening if I’ve got to get up the next day.
That was only the worst time.
she specifically says i wouldnt trust me with a gun….but you are reight about the adhd thing
Somehow yesterday the logic sector of my brain didn’t activate…
Sydney said
Why would she say this if she was trained using one? If she was trained, she might have rather said “Ok…” grabbing the suitcase, turning around, mumbling part names, turn back and hand Peggy the assembled gun.
syd recognizes that she has impulse problems that are unsettling to others and that while she may have had a successful gun safety course or an equivalent parental guidance most people will not know or believe so normally thus not trust her to safely handle a weapon other than the PPO (and handle the PPO safely by not handling it)
looking at sydney getting equipment is she going to get new glasses soon? as someone who wears glasses the one’s sydney has would not stay on her face for long in a fight. plus they would probably shatter if they were punched directly and corse a lot of damage to her eyes
Bleh, BCGs. Also, its likely thats low on the list of gear since most supers tend to not have physical ailments like bad eyesight, so they are likely not setup for super glasses.
Actually most glasses are not made of glass now because of that problem. But her prescription might be out of date and her frames look kinda flimsy.
the plastic like stuff they are made of still shatters if hit hard enuff. i had a pair in a shirt pocket once that got hit by a cricket ball and i ended up with a piece of one of the lenses stuck in my chest (painful not dangerous) i was very happy it wasn’t my eye.
it should be clear by now that Sydney’s Glasses do not follow normal physical laws.
Well she did loose them, when attacked by Shadow Boxer. And they probably came off when she ended up in Anvil’s lap. So I think they are fairly normal glasses.
Tubey though, he is tough!
my first thought at seeing the cameraman was “leisure suit larry has seen better days”.
Larry would have said something far lamer.
…And possibly related to his favorite kind of music, Disco.
Plot twist: hypothetical annoying photographer dude is actually the (not-so) secret identity of ‘Nyeh-Nyeh Can’t Hit Me Guy’ from the “look behind where you’re shooting” panel way back when.
Ooh. I like that thought.
FYI he has made one more official appearance on the ‘never get hit’ page where some hero powers encourage drawing agro.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1735
This one, to be specific
As a “gun guy” [EVERYONE except one individual who thinks they know everything, come to me at work with gun questions], I can say your reasoning on the Five-seveN is spot on. Its a weapon designed for people who arn’t going to use rifles or sidearms often, and while it fires a small bullet, it is readily armor piercing [needed against light armored supers], and extremely accurate, and has more punch and reliability than a .22 long rifle pistol.
Even the great Jeff Cooper [father of modern gunfighting] opined that “if you can’t hit them with a .45, learn how to shoot a .22 so well you can hit them in the eye under stress”. The Five-seveN just takes that concept and puts a little more OOMPH and ammo capacity behind it.
Keep up the good work!
OH, and as a side note, the Five-seveN is also, mechanically, simpler than many firearms out there, including many of the more popular sidearms. So again, good choice. Also good for recoil sensitive or small framed individuals.
Hey, if its good enough for Snake-Eyes [first GI Joe movie, I’m not making any apologies here, but he was shooting Vipers through the eye hole in their armored masks in his first scene], its good enough for Sydney.
Oh and for those that say “she doesn’t need a pistol”…just remeber, sidearms are like parachutes. You may not need one if you have one, but if you don’t have one when you need one, you are probably screwed.
Also, which is going to get more attention (and respect) from a villain? A Christmas Bauble or a pistol?
It’s the same reason why Maxi has her Buffalo gun strapped under her arm
I think too that KNOWING about such weapons is particualrly vital for Sydney’s training.
Even if Sydney never ever uses her own pistol in the field, she will undoubtedly face opponents with firearms of their own, at one time or another. Being properly aware of what such weapons are capable of, and their limitations, can only help her.
Agreed on all counts. Personally i think the FN.57 is outstanding. High magazine capacity like a 9mm Stopping power of a .45 (depending on ammo type) Accuracy of a .22 And can defeat body armor/hard cover (like an engine block) with AP ammo out to 200m (with a very skilled operator).
And the ammo is exactly the same used for a P90 if one wanted to step up their game from sidearms to PDW’s
The only issue I have with them is that the ammo is neither inexpensive or readily available on a scale like, say .22 long.
Though this is not a problem for a government agency like Archon. I can even understand the reasoning why such a sidearm is standard issue for them. Sometimes you do need a gun. Even if you have a super power. Or two. Or fifteen. (just ask Dabbler)
But given how much ability that Syd has already demonstrated with LightHook, and all the potential for growth that skill has … that gun may be just for when Syd absolutely HAS to actually Shoot someone/thing and the PPO is just too much overkill. (rule 37 not withstanding she is a cop not one of the Toughs)
Look at the skill tree, I can imagine Syd with Five different tentacles.
Each one wrapping up 5 different people/objects.
With Math training her to use em?
She could stop a small riot (or an Army vs Marine barfight) in its tracks in the time it takes to throw 2 punches with hardly any additional property damage or personal injury.
“So. This is a dinglehopper, this is a jiggleabopp…”
What?
Peggy didn’t say she had to name the parts correctly.
I call the trigger “Simple Simon”.
“This fiddly thing here, I call ‘Howard’. Well, it LOOKS like a Howard…”
As for Maxima’s perhaps hair-trigger reaction… “Hey baby, is it getting kinda hot in here?” Followed by “want me to turn the AC to a cooler setting?” seems perfectly innocuous, and not worth being dropped on the Range at ground zero for a second “Not-So-Big Bang Attack”.
I think the hand gesture with the jacket was also a part of it.
They’ll eventually find the body… after curiosity makes it to the other side of the red planet….
….. Only if it has a microscope, very very fine tweezers and a ultra-finemeshed bag to hold all the bits.
And maybe a mass spectrometer to analyze the ash.
I said find… not recover….
Also a gun would come in handy when…
“Nyah Ha Ha! Your super powers won’t work while my inator is…”
Bang.
“Gah! You bitch! You shot me!”
I see what you doof’d there.
How did you know my ONE weakness The Mighty Halo?!
Being riddled with bullets…
Heh, DIY Gun-care, or B-Y-O-P :D
The most disturbing thing with this scenario is get some one with add/adhd interested in something and then every fiber of their being goes into learning it….
And, Pistols are not that complex, Peggy’s list of requirements would take about 2 hours for someone ho was dedicated…..
Maybe less. There are only about six parts to know for field stripping.
That isn’t field stripped. She has to put it together *then* field strip and reassemble it.
Dave has made it clear that Sydney will not be stripping. Neither in a shower, nor in a field.
Nice try though. Add that to the Grrl Power After Dark suggestion box.
Although there had been some slippage in her imagination.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/153
Sydney and guns = BIG TROUBLE!!!
BTW-Why does Sydney even NEED a gun???
quicker to use and less destructive than ppo
For the same reason Maxi does
it isnt Quite that she needs it, it is more the chance to teach her to respect the gun and the rules of conduct related to proper and safe gun-handling, which applies by and large to her superpowers in general too.
Sydney might not ever use her own pistol in the field – but KNOWING about firearms, how they work, what they can do, and their limitations can only help her. ‘Help her’ in the sense of (a) being an effective member of ARCHON and (b) straight-out survival.
There are going to be times, after all, when people with firearms of their own will be pointing those things at her or her friends, and possibly even shooting.
If Sydney had ADHD,then maybe she shouldn’t HAVE a gun?!
Nah, that’s just something that needs to be worked around for training. If she can learn to handle scuba gear she can learn to handle a gun.
I can see Sydney using the gun in a fight by hitting someone over the head with part of one, then stabbing them in the face with one of the pointy parts.
Also she’ll know how to safely disarm/confiscate guns from the few perps who use them.
….. As well as the finer points of how to remove guns from unconscious perps, and safety them. I figure that would have to be a thing.
Imagine Sydney not naming the parts of her pistol properly and Peggy getting so flustered that she reassigns her to kitchen duty (unless she DOESN’T have that kind of authority?)
Maxima is off becoming a centrefold. Peggy is an officer, in the chain of command, and has been specifically assigned to instruct Sydney. So yup, she certainly could do that. Although I am sure that it would take a lot more than that to fluster a seasoned veteran, like her.
Especially as she is happy to fight near-unkillable super villains, without batting an eye! And I would hope Peggy would only assign such duties for a good reason, rather than just on a whim.
Mind you, we might well find that Maxima has indicated that potato peeling is on the itinerary anyhow. To be fitted in at Peggy’s convenience. What with the embarrassing Maxima, in front of the president, incident!
Maybe another of the Harems is on KP duty at Maxima’s request.
Actually, whilst naming gun parts might take Sydney some time to master, I suspect that gun dissassmebly / reassembly is something she will pick up VERY quickly.
I hesitate to say Sydney could crack that particular nut the same day but, given all we’ve seen and know of her, I suspect that it’s possible. Give her a couple of hours to herself for practice, and the results could be surprising.
You cannot possibly fathom how happy I am that you said magazine and not clip.
I’m amused by that method of sidearm assignment, and glad Sydney just accepted it. I almost wish someone had done that with me tbh, Nothings happened of course, but I just feel like something at least similar to that is a great first introduction.
I like this as a way of assigning a personal sidearm. “This bag of parts will be your sidearm when you learn how to put it together correctly while naming the parts. Until then you have to carry the bag of parts and not lose any.” An empty holster with a bag of useless parts is a great motivator.
He he.
+1
I’m glad they sent a poet.
She should have one gun for her own hands and one for her Light Hook to use. (not simultaneously) She should learn to hold and aim a gun with it.
Maybe wait until she knows how to use the pistol with her real hands before trying to get fancy.
Plus, trying to multi-task with pistols is something that might look kewl in the movies, but makes firearms experts facepalm. Accuracy invariably sucks – the shots are as likely to hit everything EXCEPT the target (including the user).
If you want to shoot more bullets, you don’t try to fire two pistols at once, you put them away and use a submachinegun instead. That’s what they’re for.
The two pistol thing came from old single-shot pistols where you couldn’t realistically reload. You’d shoot with one then the other.
Right, but the point is that you weren’t firing both simultaneously. That “guns akimbo” style that Lara Croft uses looks neat, but as the Mythbusters discovered, terribly inaccurate, as is using the gun “gangster style” (holding it sideways). It’s worth pointing out that in the 2013 reboot of the video games, Lara no longer goes “guns akimbo”.
Also, depending on which way you hold the pistol (on its left side or on its right side), using the gun “gangster style” is a great way to inflict pain on yourself… those ejected casings are hot, and I have seen people get burns on their neck that way.
TL;DR: “Guns akimbo” and “gangster style” look neat on screen, but if you’re using the gun(s) in that way, you’re not aiming down the sights… and the gun has those sights for a reason. That reason is called accuracy.
I so loved the Tomb Raider 2012 remake. But she actually does do a guns akimbo thing near the end.
But it’s obviously just an homage to the earlier games. For the entire rest of the game she doesnt..
Yeah, this one first sure. I was just making a list as it were of things she should get around to.
2/3rds of your message is agreeing with me, as I said “not simultaneously” in my comment, I’ll just assume that you meant to even though it sort of looks like you didn’t?
What I was going for was that it would be a great opportunity to increase her pseudopod eye coordination and of course that would also mean in a pinch she could use mega weapons as “hand guns” just like Max, Anvil, and the strong men.
A pistol is fine and all but since Sydney technically has third arm with the tentacle orb she should also be given a minigun just for that one orb. Just imagine the fun carnage that would happen.
She would still have to carry the minigun. And she will not have the lighthook active at all times.
And superiors usually frown at carnage.
…Unless that carnage is performed under specific orders…
Learn and practice with the small simple stuff first.
Also, miniguns are HEAVY, bulky, and go through ammo like you wouldn’t believe. Plus, I seriously doubt if anyone could justify hauling one around for a “normal” operation (totally sends the wrong message, IMO), and a lot of supers probably wouldn’t want to.
That said I’m sure the photoshoot people would love to see her and Maxi carrying some around.
She already has the PPO, which is much more mobile
*steps into the room*
*straightens his suit*
*takes a deep breath*
– Hey, how about after I flash you, you flash me.
– I bet I could hit your trigger just as fast.
– The light doesn’t reflect well off your jacket. I could use more of your skin…
– Oh mama, I’d like to cover all your angles.
– Could you stay a bit longer? I got a sudden request from Dakimakura Weekly.
– Since you’re in the military, would you like to know my version of “Don’t ask don’t tell”?
– That’s what I call “perks of the job”, if you catch my drift?
– If you have problems smiling for the camera, maybe you could smile for me?
– The camera loves you, and so do I.
And last bot not least:
– I used to do landscapes, so I’d love to see your hills and valleys.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, you’ve been a great audience, see you next time.
They all make great epitaphs
Used to do landscapes? Reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg joke.
“I used to do drugs. I still do but I used to too.”
Max: “…They’ll never find the body.”
DaveB: “Unless they look on the moon.”
Make that “..on the dark side of the moon” & it’ll be a winner. If revenge is a dish best served cold, keep in mind that it’s very cold in space. The “Dark Side of the Moon” is merely a few hundred degrees below zero (That’s where Pink Floyd & the Sith Lords hang out).
Jeez, I gotta stop tossing so many metaphors into a blender set on puree…
The moon rotates relative to the sun. There’s no such thing as a permanent dark side on the moon.
There’s a far side of the moon, that always faces away from earth. But that points towards the sun half the time
So you want Maxima to bury bodies in the backside of the Moon? Is that some kind of fetish?
I want to say something all perverted, but all I keep thinking up are puns about ‘frigid’
Beat me to it. But I’ll add that there is a crater near the Moon’s north pole that never sees sunlight, and is the coldest known place in the solar system (26 kelvin). Brrr.
Sounds like a prime spot for both an observatory and a research station.
Ooh, and just think of the ice sculptures they could make! There are good signs that they could source the materials locally too.
Sign me up for the first Lunar winter Olympics. Although I will stay in the nice warm habitat and just peek through the portholes.
Yorp, your first sentence made me think you were saying ‘that’s no moon… that’s a space station.’
Also, I like the idea that Sydney with a gun is ARC SWAT’s version of Cyril Figgis.
“SUPPRESSING FIRE”
The average handgun having more range (and implied accuracy) than the lighthook is not necessarily true. We have seen her zip the tentacle up to catch Anvil while she was Still being launched high into the air, long enough to need “another ten seconds” before she could get back into the fight, and then fling her down with force on Vehemence AND hit V with A with what was pretty much pinpoint accuracy even if we do assume that Anvil did what she could to guide herself down.
Consequently it is probable that the lighthook can reach to grab or otherwise interact with targets at ranges comparable with most modern handguns where we expect decent accuracy in combat (adrenaline and all being what it is). The lighthook probably has Some degree of built in guidance to help articulate its manipulations produce the results Sydney wants… That or she has some master-class talent at managing some pretty complex arrangements of the lighthook in relations to people or peoples she has grappled, swung or hurled so far.
So, in summary: Sydney + lighthook will probably outgun and be more accurate than anyone short of peggy or a shooter of like talent with a light handgun at any range said handgun is effective at.
Helps Sydney a lot if she KNOWS what handguns can do. Hence the training.
They can create Batman.
Or the Punisher.
Most gunfights take place under 25 feet and STILL only get 1 out of 20 bullets on target.
Opus is correct. It’s the stress of someone shooting back at you. You’re less likely to take the time to stop moving around and aim accurately, because that’s a good way to get yourself shot.
Most handguns have an effective range of about 100 feet (30 meters), but that depends on the platform. For example, some long-barreled revolvers with a scope have been able to accurately hit targets up to 600 feet (180 meters) away… but those are big, heavy, and chambered for rifle rounds.
(By “effective range”, I mean the maximum range at which you still have a good chance of scoring an accurate hit. Their actual range may be several times that.)
Actually, Dave, that’s pretty close to how the Army trains soldiers. I mean, they don’t start out with the gun disassembled, but there’s a good two weeks of just stripping it down, cleaning it, reassembling it, talking about it, dry firing, and so on before you ever actually go to the range.
“I’ve fixed Peggy’s chevrons” Peggy’s uniform has bars, not chevrons. Chevrons have a distinctive upside-down V shape; they appear on some enlisted rank uniforms, not officers.
See, I was hoping chevrons was a blanket term for “the rank thingies” no matter if you’re CO or NCO. Is there a term that means that? Or should I just keep calling them “the rank thingies”?
As mentioned below by FireSpark, the general term is insignia (or rank insignia). It’s a generally applicable word in this sort of context, applying to any sort of identifying mark or device whether to indicate rank or membership in a particular unit, command, or group.
Ah, well there you go.
The positioning of her rank needs to be fixed. If the collar were buttoned, the Lt bars would be parallel to the ground – they should be perpendicular to the ground. Same thing for Capt railroad tracks, Major/Lt Col clusters, Col chickens, and GO stars.
To my understanding the insignia, for officers, should located on the epaulettes on that type of jacket. https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/370
Insignia
Insignia is the catch all term linguistically speaking. Whether the military in general, or the US military in particular, have another term though, I do not know.
The first link in my post goes to https://www.defense.gov/about/insignias/ which is a good overview of US rank insignia from the department of defense. There are slang terms for specific kinds (e.g. an ensign or 2nd LT is sometimes referred to as a ‘butter bar’, due to the way the insignia looks), but the US military refers to them as insignia in general.
On that subject, Peggy’s insignia here are for 1st Lt (one rank up), while the cast page has her as a 2nd Lt (entry-level rank given to college grads).
Just an aside: It Dave would have retcon’d Peggy to a Navy Lieutenant he could have just left the pic alone. :P
Currently the insignia is gold. So, for your suggestion to work, it would still need to be changed to silver.
Just to be truly pedantic: AMERICAN chevrons are an upside-down “V”. The various Commonwealth militaries use a point-down chevron shaped like a rightside-up “V”. The rest of NATO is about 50-50 on point up or point down, assuming they use chevrons at all. (Many countries don’t.) Not that I expect you’ll be drawing rest-of-the-world insigniae any time soon, but I hadn’t expected you to draw Harper, either, so…
And for future use: the curved stripes that higher level NCOs have are called “rockers.”
ENLISTED people wear chevrons
Officers wear ‘collar brass’
I wonder if they armed Dabbler in the same way and what she build from the parts
Where do you think Maxima got her gun? They handed Dabbler a .22 in pieces.
Dabbler got random parts from a kitchen blender, a microwave and a bb gun.
This is what she built from that.
Honestly?
I’d give Dabbler boxes of mixed and random parts, insist that it makes a “simple and common item” while it contains no more then half the bits of any one thing, and at least parts from 3 things. I’d then set up a betting pool on what she’d make, and how long it took.
When Dabbler caught on, she’d get the HALF that I set aside for her.
Okay. So I’ve read this comic for so long I can’t remember when I started. And finally something comes along that my nit picky brain just can’t let go of.
Ahem.
Chevrons are the arrow and curved bars that appear on enlisted and NCOs. Officer accouterments are simply called insignia. Officer insignia is also commonly referred to by what it is. (Bars, stars, etc.)
Stan Lee cameos in everything, doesnt he?
Just not here, yet.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/352 does this count?
He he.
That totally counts.
*shakes fist*
STAN LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Its not just me that thinks that guy looks like Stan Lee’s sleazy cousin right?
I looked at the bag of parts and thought… “So it’s like a Kinder Surprise!” :)
I wish US import laws weren’t so stupid. I miss those lovely little toys. And the chocolate wasn’t bad either.
they now do a chocolate bar that is fine to import
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/KinderSchokolade.jpg
and a more sophisticated grown up on called kinder bueno
https://www.fnagroup.com.sg/tr/images/stories/brands/kinder/39-013240_big.jpg
they dont have the toys but the kinder bueno is amaz-balls
I just wish the chocolate was less bite-sized. I have to pretend I’m buying it for my siblings…
Re: the toys. Maybe when you’re overseas you can buy lots of them (from different stores for variety), but don’t open the capsule? Then take all the capsules back home. It’ll be like lots of Christmasses at once!
I was thinking, if Max snapped her fingers (like we do) it would probably be very loud and hurt normal peoples ears. It could be a good substitute for hitting people.
Possibly, but I think it would be very non-directional. If there are friendlies or innocent bystanders in the area, they’d cop it too. To say nothing of those windows, that antique china teaset and the delicate electronics.
What good is a pistol in a super villain fight? I mean Peggy was shooting a .50 caliber and hitting her target….in the eye!!!!
Have to start small and conventional. Training with the nukes comes later.
Any American cop needs to know how to safely handle firearms. If only to disarm villains and place the firearms into evidence, without the risk of a mishap.
Plus she might face a foe who is immune to energy attacks. The tentacle is clearly some form of energy.
Halo might be deprived use of her orbs for some reason. Let us say if they get hit by any attack that has a nasty residual effect (acid, radiation, biohazard, extreme heat or cold and so on. Whilst the orbs will probably be ok, once they have been washed off, there is no way that Sydney would want to touch them. And half the things on that list would break the Geneva convention if she tried whacking people with the orbs themselves.
The orbs might stop working for some reason. She does not know what powers them, or anything else about them, for that matter. As such she cannot assume that they will always be available. They might need to nap during Lunar eclipses, for example. Or their batteries might need replacing every 2,057 days.
Wouldn’t it be handy to have another option available, in the middle of a fight, if any of those problems cropped up?
if nothing else the loud bang could get the guys attention so he goes after sydney instead of a civilian
That may be true but a few on that team could crush that pistol into iron dust with the mere clench of a fist. Again….what good is a pistol in a super villain fight?
Over half the super villains we have seen could be killed by a pistol shot. So pretty good.
And for another half of them, pistol shots seem to be good enough to really annoy them and slow them down. :)
Of the remaining ones, I mean.
“their batteries might need replacing”
Most things nowadays run on ‘double A’ batteries, but an item associated with female supers would most likely run on ‘double Ds’.
Sorry. I failed my save against sexual innuendo joke.
*swats O.B. Juan on the nose with a rolled up newspaper* BAD! BAD!
Not all supers are invincible. Hell, most of them would not even have a power that’s usable in a fight.
And a large portion of the ones that are usable in a fight would be glass cannons. Capable of dealing damage, but not taking it. Like Glowbug, Budget Halo, Opal, Vekter, Atomic Bombshell… Actually now that I think about it, everyone except for a couple of big bruisers.
Same on the good guys side. Dabbler, Harem, Heatwave, Math, Jiggawatt and Halo herself are all just as vulnerable to bullets as you and I.
A couple of the people on that list have a way to defend, but they’d need to concentrate on that. Sydney’s shield, Jiggawatt can turn to lightning, Harem could teleport. But all those respondses need atleast some time. Time you don’t have, because a supersonic bullet hits before you notice the shot
Is that who I think it is in a cameo appearance?
Nope.
Well, as it got mis-posted, I might as well make use of it! Although Dave’s comment is ‘above’, in terms of the overall comments, it is actually on page 1 of the comments.