Guns in the 'Verse

POSTED BY: outlawtexan
UPDATED: Thursday, August 28, 2003 16:59
VIEWED: 8964
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

SOUTHERNMERC

Saturday, August 23, 2003 4:57 PM

GYAHH! Now I feel dumb, they named a tank after him and everything.

Coulda sworn it was Sheridan tho...

Anyway, the pistol I'm referring to is the one Mal points at the bandits while dressed as a woman. The cylinder seemed to have alot more than 6 shells in it, implying a smaller caliber. Since I don't have the episode in front of me and can only go on memory, I'll have to take y'alls word for it.

MUST GET DVD'S!!!

PS. Your right about the small engagements, bullet festivals need to be reserved for military types. If you're a "private employer" like Mal, large dustups draw too much attention. Spraying autofire into a crowd makes too many ppl nervous, for many reasons.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

CPTBUCK25

Saturday, August 23, 2003 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
I always thought that the 1911 A-1 was built for stopping power and use while it was uncleaned and filthy. It was a trench weapon. (

I can say from experiance that the 1911A1 will fire while filled with sand and grime in places it has no right to be in, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it fires _better_ under those conditions.

I would also like to make note that while the crew of Serenity do seem to favor revolvers for most of the series, they do have quite a few automatics as well. In Out of Gas, Mal uses one hidden in the cargo bay. Also in War Stories, The entire crew is loaded-up with automatics.

I think while all of the arguments in favor of the reliability of revolvers are totally valid, it may be that the reason for seeing more of them on FF may be simply a matter of preferance on the part of those who carry them.

CPTBUCK25

Saturday, August 23, 2003 5:54 PM

As for Mals sidearm... My fellow browncoats here locally and I have spent a while looking over that gun and still have no idea how it operates. It doesn't look like any weapon that I or anybody I know has ever seen. (Kudos to the props department!)

RAW53X

Saturday, August 23, 2003 8:52 PM

the major reason for tradishonal firearms used in the series is in kepping with the look of the show.

but for a practical reason to use firearms over lazer guns and other weapons. are simple. wepon surviability. think about it you drop a Glock on the floor. when you pick it up it will still works. lasers would brake easey droping them would damage the electronics and lenses inside.

and then when it comes to repairing lasers. espeshley in the field.

VETERAN

Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:07 AM

You guys are overlooking an important possibility: Gun Control. It is likely, that after the war, the Alliance outlawed many more favorable weapons. Maybe that's why you don't see too many assault rifles.

I don't know a whole lot about fire arms, but, regarding someone's comment about automatics not being able to take a lot of abuse, I'd point out that it depends on the make. I've heard that the AK-47 is well known for it's ability to fire even after being buried.

And for those who insist on calling the Civil War the War of Northern Agression, I point out that Fort Sumter was fired upon by southern forces....

Can't spend too much time on this right now, Hondo's on, so here's a link:

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/civilwar/cw26.htm

JOHNNYREB

Sunday, August 24, 2003 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:

And for those who insist on calling the Civil War the War of Northern Agression, I point out that Fort Sumter was fired upon by southern forces....

Where shall I begin? When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860, Lincoln was faced with a dilemma. Should he take SC back by force, or should he bide his time and see how it all unfolds? The fledgling Confederacy made their point of view clear. Everything in every state that secedes is that state's property. That meant post offices, police headquarters, roads, FORTS, etc. went with the state that left the Union.

Lincoln gave a statement to the papers that, until things got straightened out, the Union would not move, supply, or reinforce troops south of the Mason-Dixon line. They would maintain the status quo until everyone got to the same table to hash it all out. The Union's Major Anderson took it upon himself to move his garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter breaking Lincoln's promise not even days after the promise was made. Breaking a serious promise not even days after it was made wasn't just a slap in the face, it was a clear message that the Lincolnites couldn't be trusted. At the time, everyone in the South foresaw Lincoln and his crew treating the South with as much honesty and integrity as America had shown the indians up to that point. That is why General Beauregard ordered the first gun fired 4am April 12, 1861! What's more, Anderson was given plenty of opportunities to lower the flag and get out of South Carolina's fort. He chose to ignore them all.

Viva Firefly!

VETERAN

Sunday, August 24, 2003 7:44 PM

First, just because they said the Fort's were theirs doesn't mean they had the right to claim them.

Secondly, I disagree with your statement that Lincoln lied. His position was that status of the forts should remain as it was, this could simply be interpreted as possesions of the Federal Government, in which case the Union would have the right to reassign troups as it saw fit, especially inlight of a perceived military mobilization by South Carolina.

Thirdly, your argument would hold more water if Beauregard fired on Sumter immediatly after, Anderson (who sympathized with the South) had moved his garrison. This wasn't the case, Beauregard didn't fire a shot for almost 31/2 months. In that time period, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas all seized forts or arsenals, and Mississippi fired on a Federal warship. Sounds pretty agressive on the part of the southerners.

One last general comment. I've read comments and articles on this board referring to Linclon as a liar and despot, I feel these comments are out of line. He his one of this country's greatest presidents. He did what he had to do to preserve the nation and, even if you have objections regarding the way he went about it, this country and the world is better of for it.

JOHNNYREB

Monday, August 25, 2003 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
First, just because they said the Fort's were theirs doesn't mean they had the right to claim them.

The only other option was to tell the Union to come get their forts off of southern land. Since this isn't practical, the South couldn't be expected to tolerate "foreign" troops in "foreign" forts all throughout the South. If the South had the temerity to secede, then why wouldn't they go the extra two inches and claim the forts too?

Quote:
Secondly, I disagree with your statement that Lincoln lied. His position was that status of the forts should remain as it was, this could simply be interpreted as possesions of the Federal Government...

I never said that Lincoln lied. I said that Lincoln made a promise that his people didn't keep. Maintaining the status quo wasn't meant to hang on to one or two forts, it was meant to stave off war until all parties could come to the negotiating table.

Quote:
Thirdly, your argument would hold more water if Beauregard fired on Sumter immediatly after, Anderson (who sympathized with the South) had moved his garrison.

On the contrary, the fact that Beauregard waited as long as he did before he fired shows that the South was not itching to be the agressors, but it was only after failed peaceful attempts to reclaim their fort did they take action.

Quote:
One last general comment. I've read comments and articles on this board referring to Linclon as a liar and despot, I feel these comments are out of line. He his one of this country's greatest presidents. He did what he had to do to preserve the nation and, even if you have objections regarding the way he went about it, this country and the world is better of for it.

I agree. Lincoln had suspended no more civil liberties than any other American president has in war time. He is one of the shrewdest and effective statesmen to ever grace the presidency.

Is the world a better place because America is whole and sound? I'm sure the Muslims, French, Germans, and whatever Communists are left don't think so.

Is this country better off because America is whole and sound? YES. Although I think that 95% of the things that are being hashed out in congress have no place there. If Alabama wants to have the 10 Commandments in front of their Court, that's Alabama's business, not the Federal Government's. If Texas has a problem with religious zealots stock-piling guns in Waco, Texas should handle it. The FBI has no right to go in and burn down a compound with women and children it! America is a better place because of how the Civil War turned out, but it would be an even better place if state's rights weren't completely ripped away and a megalo-government foisted on us. Why even have states at this point?

Viva Firefly!

BLACKSTAR

Monday, August 25, 2003 2:01 AM

Oh, my God!!! What could it be? Another Civil War debate!! We're all doomed!!! WHO'S FLYING THIS THING!!! Obviously, not me....

JOHNNYREB

Monday, August 25, 2003 2:07 AM

Yeah, I think we should probably start a new thread if we want to continue the Civil War war. We should leave "Guns in the 'verse" for gun discussion. Sorry 'bout hi-jacking your thread.
The M-16: Pro or Con?

Viva Firefly!

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE