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.
I look forward to a discussion among the ladies about where each of them stands (or reclines) on the subjects of photography, feminism, and image/attractiveness (in fact, they might all be due for advice on that from Arianna).
I am sure Maxima, despite her bluster, would not space a sleazy photographer. But where would she draw the line between frowning and walking out of a photo session, and would it be more dependent on the photographer’s attitude than what was going to be visible in the shot?
Would it make any difference to her if the photographer were female or famous/lauded?
I think we’ve already seen Daphne’s opinion on photoshoots. :P Warning, NSFW. https://tinyurl.com/agkojp9
Honestly most photographers are proffessionals and do their jobs, so I’m guessing Maxima hasn’t met a lot of photographers for photo shoots. Most people working with women in various states of undress are professional, even when you have to physically put stuff on them like painting them or placing flowers and lace and shredded whatever for placing sushi on.
Oh, and plus most times for shoots you’d have way more than just the photographer. You’d have someone in charge of the equipment and lighting, someone for makeup and hair, someone for clothing, you may if shooting in a private or public space have a rep looking over to make sure you aren’t doing something they don’t approve of, you may have people from the company who are receiving the photos, an agent, and you may have other miscilanious crew.
I think Maxima would get annoyed at if her skin needed to have layers of makeup to suit the lighting plus the heat of the lights might make her sweat leading to more makeup. I could see her taking way longer than expected, and then she looks tottally different in her photos. That would probably be the worst.
Boy is the make-up artist in for a tough time! Not to mention the photographer. Regular cosmetics are not designed for Maxima’s skin.
Depending on how metallic Maxima’s skin actually is, to touch, and in terms of how it behaves under light, she may need radically different treatment in a photo shoot.
They might need to bring in specialist consultants. Possibly crew who are used to filming shiny cars, for instance.
Excellent point. She might even be immune to the adhesive aspects of makeup.
Or (certain chemical combinations) of makeup might even be her secret weakness! If she were severely allergic, that could be …bad (unlikely, because it could get non-funny pretty fast).
However, the makeup artist having metal polish at the ready could be funny!
No polish! If you use polish on Max, she’d make all of the camera film go completely white-out!
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/366
Can you imagine what would happen if Max’s skin actually has polish applied?
O.o
Honestly I’m thinking she may need some water-soluble matte finish paint rather than makeup.
Beltsander to get the dirt off and that nice shine to come through! Airbrush with automobile paint for that matte finish! And, of course, photoshop.
Wax on, wax off.
… given Sydney’s issued with a Five-seveN, does that mean the P90 is also a standard weapon for the team (due to ammo compatibility and stuff?)
The weapons are designed to be used in conjunction with each other, from what folks are saying. So I would be surprised if they did not have P90’s in the armoury. But as to whether they will be standard issue for the team, that may not be the case.
The author did indicate that the five-seven was chosen specifically for Sydney. And the team has a lot of individual requirements that might apply. For instance Harem has a limit on how much she can carry whilst teleporting. So the lighter her own weapons, the better. Likewise Heatwave is a weak flyer, so may have similar restraints.
Whereas several other members of the team have super strength. So might find that mini-guns would be useful on the battlefield. Whereas, for regular police work, it might be deemed politic to use standard issue police side-arms. Other than for Peggy, as she would clearly fit the role appropriate for a police sniper.
And we have already seen that the space marines have weapons appropriate to their image.
The unit does not have thousands of troops who it is best to equip with a standard set of weapons. Whilst that is useful, if there are no other considerations, Arc-SWAT can be a lot more flexible in their choices.
Here in the States, there really isn’t a “standard issue police side-arm”, more a set of requirements that must be met while specific make and model is left up to the individual officer, since pistols are generally privately owned. Rifles and shotguns carried in squad cars are a different matter, and are usually department property/issue. Mini-guns are of limited use except in position defense due to the prodigal appetite for ammo, even if you have the strength to carry more than a couple of minutes worth, the encumbrance factor is going to come into play and I doubt Harem can “hump” even a single reload canister. Most police snipers use Remington Model 700 bolt actions from the Remington Custom Shop in .308 Winchester (7.62mm NATO) although custom specialty rifles from other makers are making an impact in what is essentially a small market. I know at one time, the local Sheriff’s dept snipers used their personal big game hunting rifles, and they were good with them too.
Many years ago the the Remington was standard issue for many Police S.W.A.T. Snipers. Today, with dozens of AR-10 Derivatives, such the SR-25, DPMS AR-10 and others such as the FN SCAR. More and more Departments are switching to Semi-Automatic .308/7.62X51mm rifle over the bolt action Remington and Savage rifles. Also many departments are also incorporating the .338 Lapua into their T.O.E. in addition to the CheyTac and the Barrett.
When I was growing up however many Rural Departments would use Lever Action rifles in .30-30 or .45-70 or bolt action rifle in the local deer hunting caliber which could be .243, .30-06 or even 6mm. Most large city department would use .30-6/.308 style weapons. The local dept where I grew up, officers would carry either a 4 inch .357 magnum revolver or a 1911A1 in .45 ACP, they would then have either a Remington 870 Pump action shotgun or a Mossberg 500 Shotgun attached to the Radio mount and the sergeants had Lever Action .30-30’s in the truck of their patrol cars and the Lieutenant’s, Captain and the Chief had all that plus a bolt action .30-06 in their trucks.
Yeah…but now for the real elephant in the room: what’s the felt pen in Sydney’s bag for?
Actually, that’s the barrel to her pistol. :D
Prodigious. Prodigal would mean returning after an absence.
Actually, prodigal means “spending resources in a wasteful manner.” https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prodigal
True.
But that was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Biblical ‘prodigal son’. Who was welcomed back, after many years absence, with a feast.
yes, and the reason he had gone away was to spend his inheritance wastefully. he returned because it was all gone
(he also finally felt sorry)
GENERAL FAULK: Why the hell am I getting complaints about deep footprints appearing in the access road to our firing range?
MAXIMA: Because Stalwart can’t fly.
GENERAL FAULK: Come again?
MAXIMA: Soviet analysis indicates that they are practising massed formation attacks, using conventional units, trained in anti-super fighting. Theory is that they save their supers, until their regular units have killed enough of our supers, to give them the numerical advantage in the super fighting.
GENERAL FAULK: Which would be no use against you, with your energy attack, but Hiro and Stalwart can only take out one tank at a time. Or one trooper. So numerous troops, each equipped with disposable, one shot, anti-tank weaponry could pose a major threat.
MAXIMA: Precisely. So we are trying out mini-guns.
GENERAL FAULK: And the god-damned footprints?
MAXIMA: Ammunition storage bunkers are heavy. Hiro just carries his, slung underneath him, when flying. Stalwart is trying to carry his balanced on his head. That … may need refining.
+1
If you’ve ever held a P90 you know that they are very light, are mostly made of plastic, have limited recoil, and have curves that make the grips fit the hand like a silk glove. They’re a perfect submachine gun for the smaller and lighter women and a good one for anyone else although the stronger team members can use heavier guns with more punch.
I’m picturing a situation where there’s a tussle, and one of the supers walks in casually carrying a full on cannon under his arm.
“Is there a problem here?”
Might not be practical, but sure has some intimidation factor built in.
I dont think thats a Five Seven. It looks more like a SIG P226 Mk 25. The slide lacks the beveling on the slide and if you count the fins under the barrel The mk25 only has 3 fins while the 5-7 has 5 of them. Also the Five-Seven isnt really used by police or military in the US only the secret service use it while the 226 sees extensive use in both police and military sectors. Or its neither and the artist just threw a bunch of gun looking parts in a bag.
never mind, ignore me. I just re read the post. Not sure how i missed that ENTIRE GODS DAMNED PARAGRAPH.
“I’d give me more of a device that shoots tank-cutting lasers.”
Well, that’s the joke line, but in truth her response on the “Touching a star” page suggests she wouldn’t have. She really does have the heroic humble heart thing down.
https://www.grrlpowercomic.com/archives/1219
is it wierd that i can tell you what each part of the gun does without having put one together before let alone seen one in that many pieces? it’s a puzzle to me, i see the piece and see where it would fit best then see what it’s purpose is. from that knowledge i can disassemble and reassemble any mechanical device that’s put in front of me including firearms and car engines.
Cool. Call up Archon. Maybe they need a non-alien technomage on staff. I’m sure Dave could put something together for the right (ahem) ‘incentive’.
You’d be a natural in the Troops of doom comic for using Legotech…
Or maybe you found a Creation-Matrix somewhere?
I guess we’ll find out later on what happens when she shoots while holding on to the PPO.
Pretty sure the same thing that happens if she shoots a gun while not holding onto the PPO.
A 1911A1 would probably knock Sydney on her butt.
Nah, I think it would take a bit more.
A .50cal Dessert Eagle would do the job better. (heck, that would know ME on my butt. I know better than to use a handgun larger than my “Personal Sidearm”, if you know what I mean.)
Well, they are lucky that that model is not yet in the game “World of Guns: Gun Disassembly”, or Sidney would have had an easy and fun way to learn how to assembly, disassembly and learn the names of all the parts and how they make the gun work. Nevertheless, I’m guessing that Leon could program the model easily if anybody asked him to.
Annnnd now I need to get another game.
*jaw dangling by feet*
It… really … exists…
*two minutes of googling later*
Omg, and Gun Disassembly Porn too!
*two minutes of brain bleaching later*
PANDER? Eew, EEW! What are you doing with that gun?
Wait what? Gun Disassembly Porn?
Is this a thing now?
Remember Rule 34: There is porn of everything on the Internet.
I am a bit late in the comments on number of guns per country. I am definitely in the group of people who thinks that laws, rules and limits should be used as little as possible. The US has many more guns then other civilized countries but the US Murder rates are only slightly higher than the European rates. Even there I think that more effort put social programs and giving teens alternatives to gangs would do more to reduce the Murder rate then a reduction in the number of guns. I do think it is interesting that killing someone with a gun is considered a worse crime in many countries then using another method to do the killing. Either way the victim is dead.
I agree. I was having a debate with a guy the other day on banning guns and he used that tired cliche of guns being made to kill unlike other murder weapons and I asked how that changes anything. A person stabbed with a switchblade, do they become mostly dead? Do they gain super powers? No good rebuttle from him. You want to end weapon violence work on the person, not the weapons.
Not that I am out to ban guns, but I am happy to step in on the obvious point your friend failed to pick up on.
If switchblades pose no more threat than a gun, then why are our armies not equipped with switchblades, instead of guns? Guns are purpose-built killing machines that are very much more effective at the job than knives.
You are only seeing the tip of the iceburg there. Every aspect of the gun involvement is considered worse. Possessing it. Carrying it whilst committing a crime. Injuring somebody with one. Attempting to kill someone with one. Each one carries progressively steeper sentances, up to the one you mention.
But there is a tier below that. Which is doing the same with any weapon. Which carry a similar but lesser degree penalties.
And below that are the same crimes, but committed without any aggravating weaponry. Those carry lesser penalties still.
The benefits of this approach? Criminals in the UK do not see an advantage to carrying guns to conduct a crime. The members of the public do not carry guns, so threatening with a knife will get them to hand their money over just as easily as waving a gun. But does not carry any where near as steep a jail term.
Net result a society with far lower guns in circulation. Far less being used. And no fear amongst the general public (or the police or the criminals) that they need to protect themselves from gun attacks.
Victims of such attacks, who resist, are far more likely to survive though. Guns being a lot more efficient at killing than knives.
Note this is only a comment on why it is good in countries where there is not already an out of control armaments spiral.
One aspect you may be overlooking is who do you steal the candy from: The babies. Or more generally: a crook will steal from those that cannot reasonably defend themselves.
Interesting to note, some cultures puts the fault of the crime with the attacker. As in ‘why did you let him get his hands on a weapon?’
Other cultures put the fault of the crime with the victim – as in ‘why the heck didn’t you put two rounds into the perp?
Much of the gun debate I think boils down to these two mind sets meeting, and neither budging. I’m not about to argue mindset as being superior to the other. I just know which I prefer, as it affords me the ability to control my own circumstances, rather than trusting others to control them for me.
It is selfish to place the burden of protection on the individual. That creates a gang culture, where the strong can protect themselves, and, as you say, the weak get preyed upon. A society which has those priorities is getting it wrong. We must protect the weak.
That said though, every capable member of society does need to behave responsibly, in order not to expose themselves to crime unnecessarily. For instance keeping doors and windows locked. Fitting and operating a security system, if there are high-value items, which might attract burglars. Not walking around with purses or wallets in exposed positions, and so on.
Encouraging everyone to protect themselves though, by flipping a coin, with one side marked “LIVE” and the other marked “DIE”? Not so sensible. Don’t forget, if you have a society where every householder uses a gun, then every burglar, and mugger, will do too. Further who wins, in the gunfight, is not decided by who is in the right. Plus the criminal always knows when the crime is happening, so the coin is weighted in their favour.
If somebody wants my wallet that badly, they can have it. I do not want to kill them, over pocket money. Plus, not dying myself is a perk too. That way I get to give the police a description, and they can do their jobs.
To the contrary, he overlooks nothing. When the general citizenry is armed, the threshold to intimidate the general citizenry is raised. When you’re mugging people who might be carrying guns for protection, you need a gun to do it. When you’re mugging people who don’t generally carry weapons, you can intimidate compliance out of them with less effective, less efficient weaponry… which makes the actual experience of mugging safer as a trend.
The main reason is that through “civilized” debate and international treaty, it has been determined that chopping each other up with swords and axes is “inhumane”. As though inflicting painful bloody death upon other people can be anything but.
nah, it’s because Knights went out of fashion since a simple Peasant with a Crossbow could kill one of those Knights… and a crossbow had little to no training involved other than “pull this string back to here, lock it in place with this, put in bolt then point it at the enemy and pull the trigger” POOF you now have a fully trained fighter… and the various Lords of the Land looked at the bottom line and realized it was CHEAPER to do that and WIN the war than to keep those Knights and all their accessories around. and they didn’t need to train the horses, Squires, Armorers, etc… they don’t need to spend any more than the bare minimum… it cost’s too much for manufacture of, training in how to use them, the armor used to protect your troops from the swords of the enemy’s, and all for the killing of ONE enemy at a time… whereas GUNS can be used to send more bullets down-range from a distance that kill MULTIPLE enemies at once, and a couple pounds of lead and copper, with some money for making them, a bit more for training the user, and yes, a big chunk of change for the actual gun itself, STILL works out to be more cost effective… THAT’S the real reason we aren’t carrying around SWORDS any more…
I had long wondered why that was so – your explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
My pleasure.
*wags tail happily*
I sort of understand the idea of penalizing it more harshly. It’s physically easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife – so much so that accidental gun deaths are a notable statistic. Sharp though they are, AND in spite of the fact that they’re in more frequent household usage by people with no particular safety training, there are practically no accidental knife deaths.
When you’re deciding whether to kill someone with a knife, there’s a physical/logistical barrier to making it happen. It can be done, but they might be faster than you. Barring a really lucky shot, many won’t go down with just one stab/cut. You have to get physically close to the target, so it’s scarier. And so on.
I’m not saying I 100% agree with the legislative decision, but I do understand where it’s coming from. They’re trying to make a larger deterrent, because a larger deterrent is needed. There just aren’t as many natural deterrents present.
The biggest deterrent is that, in the UK, even carrying an illegal gun will get you thrown in jail. For up to ten years!
Britain has managed to limit the demand for guns, along with the supply. Mainly because, as a society, we don’t want them. Gun clubs grumbled when gun laws were tightened up. But the rest of us could not give a rats arse about it. Especially as farmers, or anybody with a legitimate need for one, still can still obtain them.
Note that most violent crime, in the UK, is actually committed domestically. So that is very important if considering how dangerous something is to society. A country with easy access to guns, in many homes, will have a higher number of killings than an identacle country without. The same is true for suicides. Accidental gun deaths also factor in at this point.
Britain is looking at extending this principle to ensure that only safety knives are sold in UK high streets. These are ones which do not have a killing point on them. You do not need such for any domestic task, such as cooking. Those need sharp edges not points. And opening packages only needs a small point. As opposed to the big ones you currently find on practically any domestic knife.
Note that this proposal has been initiated by the medical profession in the UK. Who have shown that stabbing (as opposed to cutting) is much more likely to result in fatal wounds. And most are recorded as having been committed with domestic knives. As opposed to switch-blades or the ilk.
Limit every day ease of access to killing weapons, and you reduce the number of fatalities.
The thing is Yorp, anything heavier or harder than the human skull is a “killing weapon”. A hammer, a handsaw, a power drill, a brick, etc. Humans have been finding ways to kill each long, long before the invention of guns, or bows and arrows, or even metal. I can’t have a gun? OK. Can’t have a sword either? OK. Nor a knife? Well, guess this fist sized stone will have to do the job. Now, let me propose a hypothetical situation to you. You are going to be killed, by violence. There is no way to avoid this. You do, however, have the choice of manner. Would you rather be killed quickly and cleanly with a gunshot? Or beaten to death with a rock? I have been shot, and I have been bashed with a rock (neither fatal, obviously) and I can easily make my choice.
Well, I’ve been a killjoy, so to lighten the mood I’d like to tell a little story about difficult choices. Some of you may find it humorous.
“One day, a traveling salesman was found screwing the farmers daughter. When he awoke, after being bashed on the head by the farmer, he found himself in a barn, and that his scrotum was trapped in a vice which was fastened between his testicles and his body. The handle of the vise was, of course, missing. Looking around, he saw the farmer standing next to him with an exceedingly dull, rusty knife. “Oh God, I’m sorry, I won’t ever do it again! Please don’t cut off my testicles!” “Cut you?” said the farmer, as he handed the salesman the knife, “I’m not gonna cut you. I’m gonna set the barn on fire.”
Ahh, the Mad Max technique. The old ways are the best. Somewhat spoilt if the salesman just hobbles off holding the vice. But I vote that the farmer uses a really big industrial one.
As for your hypothetical situation, I would opt for the rock. It gives me a chance to take the f**ker with me!
No chance of that against a gun.
Thanks for pointing out the disadvantages of living in a society where the other members, of your own community, have power over you with a gun. I am glad I do not live somewhere where I actively have to decide to kill people, to prevent that.
Now let me make a counter-proposal. Would you endorse a weapon which would allow potentially any faction of society, who felt that they were being tyrannised, to kill off many (or possibly even most) members of the government?
Think well, on your choice, before clicking on the spoiler text.
Do you really want a population who are indoctrinated to think that this is the best course?
This is not a hypothetical situation.
Yes, we farmers tend to have need of large tools. :P Plus a vice is not very much use unless it is secured to something large and heavy to hold it still while you are beating, prying, grinding or otherwise working on the objects being held in it. The metal ones, not the kicking and screaming ones :D.
I suppose I should have made my choices execution “by firing squad” or “stoning in a pit”. Ah well, hindsight. Always 20/20.
There is a saying in America, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” This is the problem I see with Britain’s system. While the populace has been deprived of it’s most effective means of self defense, the (admittedly more affluent) criminals still get their hands on firearms via the black market. The very same channels that bring in illegal drugs and other contraband serve very well for an illegal gun trade.
People think that the disarming of Great Britain is a new thing, it isn’t. It actually began between WW1 and WW2. Another major drawback that I see to this policy is that in the event of an invasion, such as when Germany was just across the Channel during WW2, the populace cannot be armed in defense of the nation. During WW2 Americans donated personal weaponry, including hunting rifles, military bolt action keepsakes from “The Great War” and many others to the English people so they could defend their own shores. And what was done with this great gift following the war? Over 99% were destroyed, so the government could feel safe from it’s own people. When a government fears an armed uprising of the people it governs, it is doing something wrong.
As to you counter-proposal, if I’m reading it correctly, you are escalating the debate into the realm of WMDs. Of course I see no reason for a civilian population to have ready access to such, but I do advocate the availability of high quality small arms for defense against attackers both foreign and domestic as well as an over reaching government.
I have never had to make the choice of whether or not to kill another human being, neither in my military service nor in the civilian life that has followed it. I do, however, treasure the right that gives me the tools to have a choice, should the occasion ever arise that it is “Kill or be killed.”
I am very much in favour of high spending on defence. You are speaking to the choir, on this one. I feel that the UK has taken theirs far too low, at the present time. And sufficient stockpiles of weapons, to provide home defence is absolutely vital.
Handing those out to the general public, in peace time, so that every mugger and burglar can come at me with a weapon? #*&#@ stupid idea!
I think you keep looking at the situation from the wrong end. No one is in favor of arming muggers, burglars, or other criminals. The thing is, they can and will arm themselves, no matter what the law says. Breaking laws is their business after all. So if the criminal is going to be armed with something anyway why should you, the peaceful, law abiding citizen, be deprived of the best method of self defense you can afford to posses? I want my friend and debating partner Yorp to be safe, and to have access to whatever means are necessary for him to stay that way. Unfortunately, the police are not in the business of stopping crime, but of responding to it, and that does little to guarantee the safety of the populace at large.
You seem to miss the fact that is only happening in your little fantasy. The criminals do not use guns here. In fact in the eight years I have been living here, I have only heard of one violent crime being committed in my region. And that was a mayor who decided to renegotiate his kick-back arrangement with the Mafia. But even that just involved him being roughed up.
Not that I have any idea what the crime might be like in other parts of Bulgaria. I do not go there, and I do not watch TV. But in my part of it, and all the parts of the UK where my friends and family live, nope no problems.
No matter how much you try to convince yourself that it is a universal state of being, you are just deluding yourself.
It’s not my fantasy, and it’s not a little problem. I’m very happy to hear that you are blessed to live in such a safe and quiet section of the world. Truly I am. But most of the rest of us are not so blessed. If it was truly the Mafia involved in the “roughing up” of you Mayor (and I have no reason to doubt you), in my experience, things could have gotten much worse, very quickly. Those guys don’t play around, and murder is just another tool for them.
I never said that every criminal would be armed with a gun. Many are, more are not. But violent criminals are, at heart, bullies. They operate through fear, and will use what ever tool that they can get their hands on to increase your fear. Some use guns, some use knives, some use blunt objects such as a piece of pipe, or a ball or cricket bat, or whatever else is at hand that will increase their perceived power. This is a universal truth. Criminals the world over operate in much the same overall manner, only the small details change by location and/or culture.
With that said, I vote to let this manner drop in a civilized manner. Let’s agree to disagree on this matter and depart the debate on friendly terms.
I would not have it any other way! Besides which the world is richer for diversity.
*wags tail happily*
im sorry, i realise this is well old but i have a problem with something in particular you said here.
“Not that I have any idea what the crime might be like in other parts of Bulgaria. I do not go there, and I do not watch TV. But in my part of it, and all the parts of the UK where my friends and family live, nope no problems.”
i think you would be shocked at how much gun crime UK news actively ignores. and you effectively admitted here that you do not look beyond your own local area. that you don’t pay attention to what’s happening elsewhere. whilst concluding that because you don’t see it, its not happening.
i don’t even have a problem with your conclusion necessarily, but the way you reached it. that is selective ignorance, and its very bad form in a debate.
a teen gets blown away by a shotgun from a passing SUV on the street in broad daylight, possibly not even the teen being targeted by the shooter, but i might be thinking about another case there, and you think that would make national news? because i didn’t catch it if it did. it certainly didn’t make the front page of my areas local papers.
you are more likely to hear about someone being beheaded with a machete. again in the middle of the street, in broad daylight, and in front of bystanders. and again, doesn’t make front page in a local paper outside of London, so if you don’t watch TV…
never mind that when you posted this comment, London was globally infamous for acid attacks. people throwing acid in other peoples faces. that didn’t make headlines that often either.
and i would take a bullet over that, honestly.
I just thought of something that might help put it in perspective. Because I do realise this is very much a clash of cultures. You are simply saying the things which you feel to be true from your personal experience.
But, just to let you know that I am not living in denial myself, I recall, earlier this year, seeing advice given to Brits travelling to one of the South American countries, for to watch football internationals. And UK police were having to explain to them that if you get mugged you must co-operate and hand over your valuables.
In particular that you must not shout for help or otherwise draw attention. Or you will be killed out of hand.
That may seem pretty obvious to you, given your expectations (and if you appreciate that Brits would not be armed). But those are not instincts that are actually needed in the UK. Not unless you live in a very dodgy inner city housing estate, where gang culture is starting to take hold.
And even there, they would not be getting away with casual murder. If the bodies started piling up, it would hit the headlines across the country!
Even with the media’s fixation on reporting crime, you do not see endless reports of murders by muggers. And police do not need to issue similar warnings for any part of the UK.
Pander was saying in another thread something like “you cannot walk down every street in London”. Well actually you can. I worked there for many years, and wandered freely wherever I liked. With no trouble. My brother lived in one of the areas that had a nationally bad reputation. And had no problems (mind you the reputation was a bit dated, it was alright there).
Of course I would be careful not to go the wrong places, after dark, or go somewhere that looked like it might be called “Mug me alley”. My father was born in London and travelled to every part of it extensively, with a fascination to explore it. Yup, you guessed it. No muggings, nada. Nor with my grandfather, also a Londoner. And his worked on the railways, which meant he knew every part of it like the back of his hand.
Note that an American politicians caused an international scandal this year, by stating on US TV that there were no-go areas in a UK city. He, and the TV company that broadcast his statements, had to apologise. It was completely baseless.
So your mind set is healthy for surviving in your own country. I know you cannot safely walk in parts of it. Likewise in other countries, which have similar gun and crime problems. But you have blinkers on, which stop you seeing outside that narrow perspective. Different social policies can and do yield different results.
You can and should assume that every mugger or burglar is armed – relative to you at least – simply because if the mugger or burglar did NOT consider himself to be armed relative to you, he wouldn’t risk contact with you.
Easily a third of high-school seniors could beat the tar out of me and possibly cripple or kill me, barehanded, with no significant risk of injury to themselves, unless I pull out a weapon. And I’m not particularly old, feeble, or small. In other words, THEY ARE ARMED.
The ones that are law-abiding and respectful, I have no cause to fear, even if I happen to observe that they are carrying a knife or firearm.
The ones that are inclined to commit violent crimes, I have cause to fear, without regard to whether they have a knife or firearm.
So naturally I carry… well, actually, I don’t. There are people who really should not carry a firearm, and I’m one of them. I have nervous tremors in my hands, and weak wrists. The most essential form of gun control is a firm and steady grip, and I can’t do it.
But a general restriction on guns? Why are you so eager to protect the criminals?
Honestly, much as I wish that I could take out a mugger with my bare hands and sparkling personality, I know that if a guy comes at me with a knife, I’d much rather have a gun to protect myself than rely on hand-to-hand, or another knife, or pepper spray, or a rock.
Although I did once use pepper spray when some a-hole tried to mug me back in high school. He pushed me into a wall, tried to take my money, I had one of those pepper sprays on my keychain, sprayed pretty much the whole thing I think, and another guy had to stop me from semi-hysterically kicking the guy in the head and back when he was already writhing on the floor after getting a mouthful of it right in the face and eyes. Would have liked to jam the pepper spray and/or keys IN his eye then beat his head in with a chair.
I’m not at all violent. Nope. Not me. I’m nice. :)
Although…. Pretty sure that guy wouldnt want me having a gun if he had a knife. Tough luck for him. Also pretty sure if he had a knife, I wouldnt have dared use the pepper spray.
Ok, heads you win, tails you loose.
TAILS (I did really flip the coin). Sorry, the mugger decided to shoot you first. You are dead.
Fortunately only virtually. Mind you, I certainly would not council against you carrying a gun. You know the environment you have to live and work in. Next time it might be a rapist and not a mugger. And you could be in a circumstance where you have the opportunity to use your weapon to good effect.
Glad you know how to handle yourself though. Very sensible to both have the pepper spray and to consider when it is safe, or not, to try and use it. Same goes for a gun, if you choose to get one. Flipping the coin may be better than the alternative. :-/
Me: “I’m warning you! I know Dow!”
Mugger: “What is that? Some kind of martial arts style?”
Me: “Nope! It’s the company that makes Mace!” *sprays*
@Yorp
Thanks for pointing out the disadvantages of living in a society where the other members, of your own community, have power over you with a gun.
Why stop at guns?
Car drivers run me off the road because Im on a bike.
I live with roommates that could smother me in my sleep with the pillows on my bed.
I live in an apartment building. Maybe one of my neighbors is learning the fine art of home made explosives instead of home made brewery? Or pulling a tony stark and building a reactor in the spare room? (that has actually happened . years ago a boy scout tried to build a reactor in his parents shed. He was close enough to success that the national government got involved. google it)
Living in fear of what might happen is a good way to not live.
I am glad I do not live somewhere where I actively have to decide to kill people, to prevent that.
Just because you personally do not do the above, does not mean that there is someone else doing it for you. If they have a house and family, that has to be somewhere. Maybe in your neighborhood?
Now let me make a counter-proposal. Would you endorse a weapon which would allow potentially any faction of society, who felt that they were being tyrannised, to kill off many (or possibly even most) members of the government?
Like landing a jumbo jet on the ‘State of the Union’ Address? (Tom Clancy)
or between 930 and 1000 am on the first workday of a week where the major regional/national legislative body of government is in session?
lets take it up a notch.
We live in a world with unaccounted for WMD’s. That same world contains plenty of folks that would end themselves (and anyone in range) with a bang.
Once again living in fear is good way to not live.
Mmm. Let me think. It is a small village, so I know the goings on of most people, even if only second hand. And we all look out for each other. I am pretty sure no one has expressed fear of being murdered.
Being burgled, sure. Bulgaria is a country with a high crime rate, so that is always possible. Going hungry, yep, a lot of fear there. Likewise fear of not having medicine, when ill. Although wolves and jackals, wandering around the village, do not bother us. The livestock are locked away, to keep them safe.
Aha, got it. One of my immediate neighbours. I know nothing of his affairs, as he is rarely in the village. And mafia capos do not really discuss their business with strangers. Although I am pretty sure he is not afraid. If anyone shot him, there would be consequences. As such, there is no need for him to walk around with a gun. Silly to needlessly risk getting caught with it.
Sooo… help me out on your intent here….
Your argument seems to be “I am afraid of criminals, so I want a gun. But I am not afraid of dying in traffic, being murdered by friends and family or…um home improvement or through terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.” Your concluding point, although punchy, does not seem to tie into that message. Given that it still leaves the “I am afraid of people with guns”.
Just to point out the actuarial side of things though. Your list of things that you ARE afraid of, and willing to take precautions to prevent (being killed by criminals) is significantly lower risk, to your life, than the sum of those which you are NOT.
Being killed in traffic is a biggie. So is a domestic accident. Murder is way down the list, of course. But if you are going to die by murder, it is more likely to be your friends, family and neighbours who do it. And they have pretty easy access to your gun.
You need to seriously re-evaluate your risk assessment.
Speaking of things-that-could-be-weapons, Interestingly, there is one excellent close range weapon that is legal everywhere, but almost completely overlooked and underestimated.
The humble walking stick. Once a required part of any man’s wardrobe, this simple stick can break bones, concuss sculls, permanently remove your ability to father children, relieve you of vulnerable parts of your body (your teeth, or even your lower jaw, for instance), or even kill. Entire martial arts are built around its use. To drive home the point, it’s cousin the quarterstaff is considered one of the greatest melee weapons of all time.
And it’s perfectly legal to own and carry, requires no registration or license, can be brought into almost any building without comment, won’t set off a metal detector–anybody else out there think we should bring these things back into fashion?
Harumph
They are back in fashion! I never leave home without my quarterstaff.
I have an issue with the thought that by reducing the lethality allowed it somehow stops the people who would kill from doing so. Not changing the people means you don’t change the death rate. So the next time they limit the length of legal knives to finger length. And again and again. Next thing, they outlaw pencils (its pointy and can stab yes?) so everyone is limited to crayons and felt tips.
As Ben Franklin put it “Anyone who gives up a little freedom for security deserves neither”. Has domestic violence gone down? Nope.
You are arguing against something without checking into the merit of it. Going by the findings presented, by UK medical researchers, into this matter,* injuries caused by thrusting pointed attacks are more likely to be fatal than not. Whereas slashing injuries are less likely to be mortal.
I am the first one to tell overly political correct individuals to go stick their heads where the sun does not shine. But only when the policies being proposed are ill-thought out. In this case the cost per knife would be much the same. There would not be a ban on existing knives. So it would be a slow introduction, as old ones got replaced.
And a judgement call could be made on how many lives could be saved, by the government purchasing in bulk, and offering a knife-swap. If the numbers make sense, that would allow the whole process to be accelerated. If not, well, even a gradual change is an improvement.
Your Ben Franklin quote is totally irrelevant. There would be no impingement on freedom at all. Well, other than the freedom to stab people to death. That would be harder to do.
The incidence of domestic violence would indeed remain unchanged. The survival rates, from it though, they would improve. Should it reach the point where most domestic knives were replaced, the mortality rate, from attacks with them might be as low as half the present day figures.
* Based on surgical admissions, within accident and emergency departments. I point this out, in case anyone leaps on the figure to pretend that knives are more dangerous than guns. This study was only looking at incidents, with serious injury.
Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet & sorry if some one already has. NCOs refer to their rank structure as chevrons & rockers; however, the officers are quite varied. Universally Lieutenant’s are just bars, Captain’s bars are are usually referred to as railroad tracks & as for the rest from there out it kinda depends on what branch of the military they are in.
kindof odd that they’d even bother giving sydney a gun, if she can grab a gun she can grab an offensive orb just as quickly. I’m sure theres a reasoning behind it but having her learn to control her powers and curb her attitude in public is stressfull enough, but now she’s got to learn how to use a gun on top of that.
I think part of the point of giving Sydney a gun is to both test and teach the kind of self discipline, obedience to apparently nonsensical orders, and reliable focus and concentration that you want someone with a blasty orb to have.
If she cannot learn to handle a gun safely, we don’t let her use the blasty orb in urban areas. Or forests.
+1
Also, can the PPO do something as *small* as a single bullet? Sometimes that’s the largest you want to go.
She’s a cop-slash-soldier. Of course she has to use a gun. There’s no reason this wouldn’t be the case.
Even if we needed an argument in favour, there’s the very simple one that guns provide all members with a weapon in common. They can’t count on their teammates all having the same powers as them (or any powers at all), but they can count on all their teammates having a gun. And no one knows what it’s like to have or use their teammates’ powers, but they all know what it’s like to have or use a gun, and they all know that everyone else knows what it’s like to have or use a gun.
And then there’s the fact that one’s powers may sometimes be unavailable or unusable, even without villain involvement. Varia needs to be touching somebody; Sydney needs to be able to hold her orbs in her bare hands; Harem needs to either be familiar with her target, have one of her bodies there already, or be able to see it clearly with her naked eye; and so on. These conditions aren’t always present. When powers aren’t available, mundane weapons and tools (including but not limited to guns) need to be on hand to fill in the gap.
And then there’s the point Maxima brings up soon, which is that guns convey a universal threat. (Whereas powers vary in their capacity to intimidate without being discharged.)
I’m not familiar with the gun that Halo is being issued with, but it is good to see she’s actually taking the training seriously. Her comment about not giving herself a working gun speaks volumes about maturity.. Of course; being Sydney I can’t wait to see what happens next. (Evil chuckle in anticipation)
Okay, this is gonna bust me if I don’t say it, and my apologies if someone else has said it already: As a professional soldier, Peggy would most likely present Sydney with a SIDEARM.
MAXIMA: Peggy, lunch is on me, in the food-hall. But I am assigning you to show our new recruit, Sydney, the ropes. Do not touch her orbs. Even if she asks you to! Same goes for anybody else, they have not been tested yet.
Oh, and she speaks geek. A lot. You are going to have a hard time following some of the things she says. And she will have an even harder time keeping up with you.
You know, from your own experience, that a civilian normally has weeks to get used to the idea of being in the military, before they actually end up in boot camp. Well, we are starting her off tomorrow morning. It is going to be even more of a culture shock for her, than is is for regular recruits.
Do whatever you have to, in order to help her adjust. Her powers are far too powerful, to risk alienating her, by pushing her too fast too soon! Try speaking geek to her, until she has a chance to settle in. She will pick up the jargon quickly enough.
PEGGY: I saw, on TV, that the poster tube resisted you moving it. One of her powers?
MAXIMA: Yea, one of her lesser ones, amongst a bunch of them. And I had my strength dial set to maximum!
PEGGY: (eyes bulging) …
…
… I will brush up on geek-speak, with Leon, right after lunch!
Good move Peggy.
Will be interesting to see what happens next, poor photographer.
one of the books i’m reading right now (Laura Resnick’s: Unsympathetic Magic) the main character get’s asked that question by one of the other characters… little did she know that he was having a heart attack at that moment!…
i can see something like that happening here: Max is just getting a semi-comfortable feeling with the photographer, when he does the stereotypical porno moves of taking off his jacket and asking that question… She get’s pissed off and starts to go towards him, and he keels over… she thinks he’s faking it and storms out instead, not telling anyone about him in her rush to get out of there before she ACTUALLY follows thru with her (semi joking) threat about them “never finding the body” and it isn’t until someone looks in on them later to find him on the floor almost dead and her missing…
are cops allowed to casually make death threats?
Yes. They can’t follow through on it. Cops are fully allowed to lie, intimidate, and threaten violence.
Actually I guess they sort of can follow through on threatening lethal violence, actually, if it’s justified.
For example:
Criminal has a gun in his hand. Police Officer has gun aimed at him. Police Officer says, “DROP YOUR WEAPON OR I WILL SHOOT!” The criminal tries to bring up his gun to aim it at the cop.
The police officer is able to shoot the criminal. To kill him even.
He can’t do something like ‘you know, I could just kill you and no one would ever know’ in order to coerce a confession out of a suspect though, if that’s what you mean. If he did something like that, the confession would be an involuntary confession and NEVER make it to trial,and the police officer would be in major trouble. Not criminal trouble (unless he also did something physical to back up the threat), but administrative trouble (plus he could get suspended – or fired if this was some sort of repeat offense), and very likely be the subject of civil litigation by the suspect (depending on a number of circumstances)..
If you’re meaning what Maxima is saying though, that’s no actually a death threat. It’s not being said to the threat-ee, And it’s a joke.
As much as anyone else.
That is to say, if the one receiving the threat deems the threat sufficient enough to believe then that is assault.
“I am going to beat you until all of you is broken. then I will beat you some more.”
Is assault
Actually following through? That is Battery
Thus why you find the two (separate) charges mentioned together so often that more than a few people think “Assault&Battery” is one charge.
Kinda like how “Dungeons&Dragons” is a great overall descriptor that combine two related things that are in point of fact very different. A dragon is Not a dungeon. Nor is a dragon a dungeon.
Back to the point.
No more so than anyone else. Up until the prevalence of camera phones … they could get away with it.
Because the cop is a “trusted” official in a court of law. In comparison you are merely a citizen. Its his word against yours. And taking your word over his legally opens up a can of worms that can bring the whole system down.
Now a days, a cop making a casual death threat on camera will face disciplinary action if s/he is lucky.
If it makes the evening news its theirr job. If the threatened victim (upon realizing that the camera defeats the “its your word against mine ” argument) then decides to press charges of assault it would be up to the judge and jury.
I imagine that conversations with on duty police are going to become a bit more regimented. Like talking to robocop.
The problem is your friend is posting on a DA page. I never did figure out how to read comics in order on that site, so I just ignore links to anything on that site which isn’t a single picture. I can’t be the only one who’s given up on reading webcomics through that site.
I have not tried yet. But the prospect is not appealing. If it is easy to figure out the progression, and I can easily scroll up and down, for instance, I could handle that.
Web comic that do not have convenient, on screen, navigation options though, those I do give up on. And fast. If you have to keep going into an archive menu, and hunting around to find where you got up to, in order to select the next page, then I don’t care how tempting the story is. The hassle is not worth it.
Let alone the ones where you can look everywhere on the page and not even have a hint that it is actually a full comic, rather than just an example page. Those I will poke at the picture and, if that does not do the trick, I try the “X” in the top right hand corner of the tab.
The ones who are committed to having an audience will put links in the description that function as “next” and “previous” buttons. But even some of the ones that don’t are well worth the read (e.g. Sunstone). For me, the bare minimum is at least having all the pages in one gallery folder (which Sunstone does). Otherwise, the comic had better have either very few pages or no continuity.
Know what’s worse than reading a comic on dA? Reading a comic on Tumblr. As far as I can recall I’ve only ever read one comic on Tumblr, and that was because it didn’t have a lot of pages, and the account in question was created mostly for the comic, so I didn’t have to sift through a bunch of other stuff.
Overlooked argument:
In one corner of the right you’ve got a 250lb sociopath who studies martial arts, likes to hurt people, and intends to kill because he’s been seen and doesn’t want to go back to jail. And in the other corner my 110lb 70 year old grandmother, expert knitter and dedicated quilter.
You’re going to give both of them the same weapon. He’s bigger, faster, stronger, and more skilled with any weapon you pick. Which weapon would you pick to give grandma the best chance of walking away alive?
A gun of some kind, hands down. They aren’t called “the great equalizer” for nothing. Mind you, her chances still aren’t great, but FAR better than with any other weapon (or lack of weapon) you can name. Is that even disputable? And as an added bonus, guns are noisy, making using them secretly more difficult, and possibly alerting neighbors that something is wrong.
I believe that there are more people in the world who are “good” than “bad”. In this case meaning “wants to hurt and kill” vs. “wants people not to be hurt or killed.” Given that the criminal (who is outnumbered, there’s more potential victims than there are criminals) is going to pick a situation where he can prevail as easily as he can manage, any attempted violent crime IS a restatement of the above hypothetical.
Therefore, all grandmas should have guns. Or potential grandmas, which is all of us, even us 250lb martial arts trained “tough guys”. After all, you can always be outnumbered, outgunned, surprised, hostages taken, or legislatively “held down” to make you more vulnerable.
Though it’s been shown it isn’t necessary for all grandmas to be armed, when “enough” grandmas have guns, the bad guy will pick someone else or do something else. Unless you’re dealing with a “targeted” threat, like an ex. Like Carol Brown for instance. Then YOU need to have a gun, it’s not enough for the grandma next door to have one.
I do not disagree with your argument in principle.
In practice, however…
I know myself. I have been threatened with a gun before. And I know from personal (anecdotal) experience that in any situation where I would ‘need’ a gun, I would not attempt to draw one until it was too late, and if I had the gun out, I would wait until I was sure of my target before firing …which in most urban situations I am familiar with, is too late.
For instance: You are walking down a street. A group of youths are lounging around a car you are passing. One of them approaches you to bum a smoke.
If they intend you harm, it is now too late to go for your sidearm.
My solution: teach granny kung fu, If you have seen any *Chinese* kung fu movies, you know that the older you are, the more of a badass you are :D
+1
Granny needs that thing that slides the gun up the sleeve into her hand. Mine could drive and play piano into her 90’s so she probably could have gotten it working.
If you are in a bad area I guess you could sew little strings tied to tiny mace sprayers to each cuff to give you some time to go for the gun. (if they others are coming to back up the first one)
If they all, or most of them, have guns then all of the above would be mostly pointless.
Can’t she have a Rocket Launcher as a personal Sidearm :P
This game have a disassemblable FN Five-seven model (and a mini-gun, the pistols you mentioned, an APC (or was it an AFV) (gonna take you a while to disassemble that one), all disassemblable, assemblable, and field operateable).
Since two years after this page was published Peggy still has twin butter bars on the previous pages, I take it DaveB still hasn’t had a chance to go back and fix it?
Correct. Dave sinks all of his time into working directly on the comic and has not managed to free up enough spare time to clear the ‘to do’ list. Maybe if we get enough new readers, and thereby patrons, he will be able to hire full-time help, so that he can deal with the lesser issues.
BTW, I love your Yorp gravatar! Whenever you change it, I am sad until you change it back again. *gives Yorp a doggie treat*