My theory about guns in Firefly by Ringwraith

Nicely put, Ringwraith.

What I find most irritating about science fiction is the persistant notion that everyone need to use "ray-guns." A few questions: Are projectile firing guns effective? Yes. Has anything more effective been developed? No. Why? Because projectile-firing guns are effective.

There's no need to put intense research into weapons when the current weapons are effective enough. Also: It would probably be easier to develop laser-deflecting body sheilds that are comfortable to wear than it is to develop comfortable/convenient body armor to deflect bullets.

Get used to the idea that lasers will most likely never be used as personal weapons. Phasers are illogical unless they were to be used for stunning opponents rather and killing them.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
Phasers are illogical unless they were to be used for stunning opponents rather and killing them.

Well, maybe in your universe! But in the warm-and-fuzzy Roddenberryverse, you have to have 100% safe, non-lethal weapons! They can't even allow people to hit their head when they fall down!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 1:01 PM

RONSON2K

Well just a couple of things. Guns use expanding gas to fire a projectile. On earth the sorrounding gas is well not that volitile. On other planets this may not be the case. Gravity may also be different as well as atmospheric pressure. All these things work together on earth to make a gun effective but on another world these things could work against such a weapon. One might need different types of powder or longer barrel or greater riffling or stonger material.

Myself I think the guns are used as a 'primitive' in the future kinda thing. Low tech sort of an 'anti Roddenberry' if you will. To set itself appart. Also Special effects cost $$$ budget may not be able to handle all the effects for the first season and savings could be used to construct a 'ray gun' for season two...

Ronson2k

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 2:01 PM

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Quote:
Originally posted by Ronson2k:
Also Special effects cost $$$ budget may not be able to handle all the effects for the first season and savings could be used to construct a 'ray gun' for season two...

Ronson2k

Did you see the special effects? I don't think the budget entered into it. Joss wanted a look. Guns contributed to the look.

What amazes me is how the weapons look both antique and futuristic. Projectile weapon technology has definatly advanced over the centuries. Instead of making up ray guns, people just improved what they already had. Which explains why the guns work on different planets.

________________

"I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life’s a bitch. You’ve got to go out and kick ass." —Maya Angelou

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 2:16 PM

JENGEL

How do we know that these guns actually are just like the guns of today? Maybe it's an advanced form of pulse technology that pushes out super-compressed "pellets" of energy that fuse the molecules together and form dense projectiles on the fly? You never know.

Like someone said, people will always use the simplest weapon when it comes down to it. A laser gun requires a LOT of technology. A gun is simple. I think guns have a long lifespan. Maybe someday someone can create a portable lazer, but you need an energy source for that. Not as reliable
as a projectile gun.

I like them using guns. Blowing holes into the hulls is not an issue. Any space-vessel that complex would be made of numerous hull layers, much of it cast metal of some sort. Not even .50 calibre bullets can penetrate current tank armor. And I guarantee you that spaceships need even thicker hulls than a tank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:18 PM

Well, here's my $0.02 worth, as a major gun enthusiast and hunter:

The fact that everyone is running around with a slug-chucker is the only thing about the show that bugs me.

I don't mean that they shouldn't have some kind of gun, but I look at the development of personal weapons since, say, 1600 and move that forward 500 more years and add a spacefaring culture behind it.

It just seems to me that given that 500 years ago the major personal weapon was the knife and that portable firearms were -- at best -- in their infancy, that it seems odd for someone 500 years in the future to be carrying a slug-chucker.

Now, don't get me wrong, as I otherwise like virtually everything else I've seen. But it seems odd to me that a sane individual who understands that self-defense cannot be delegated would protect him- or herself with a 500-year-old weapon design.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Besides the absence of aliens in Firefly we also know that the characters use weapons that fire cartridges: pistols, machine guns, rifles, etc. Guns are easy to make. You could make a six-shooter much easier than a semi-auto; too many things to go wrong. Guns work, especially the ones with few moving parts like revolvers. Chances are it won't jam up on you and it'll do what it's supposed to do when you shoot someone.

Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic. One of the simplest handguns ever made is the Glock 9mm. The Glock's complexity comes in the precise control over the shape of the plastic frame.

During WWII, just about any machine shop could produce the Sten gun, a 9mm submachine gun, and did. At least one blow-back submachine gun, with silencer has been produced INSIDE a US Prison. With simple tools. Cross reference "Small Arms of the World" by Smith and Ezell.

Jeff
Who was a US Army Small Arms Repairman and Inspector back in the 1970s.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:44 PM

HAPLO721

My thoughts:

1. They mentioned that all inhabited worlds had been terraformed, which means that they have been altered into a very Earthlike state. Most likely every one of these planets has a nearly identical atmosphere to Earth's (at least Earth in our time...)

2. Dakota, I invite you to think of a hand weapon that's both superior to a firearm, and not insanely expensive/complicated. I don't think you can though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
What I find most irritating about science fiction is the persistant notion that everyone need to use "ray-guns." A few questions: Are projectile firing guns effective? Yes. Has anything more effective been developed? No. Why? Because projectile-firing guns are effective.

Would everyone be happy if we called them, "Kinetic Energy Projectors?"

Jeff
Who notes the Rock Mark I, still delivers an effective dose of KE to a target...especially when rolled down a hill or dropped from a tall building.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jengel:
I like them using guns. Blowing holes into the hulls is not an issue. Any space-vessel that complex would be made of numerous hull layers, much of it cast metal of some sort. Not even .50 calibre bullets can penetrate current tank armor. And I guarantee you that spaceships need even thicker hulls than a tank.

Our current spacecraft don't have hulls anywhere as thick as a tank, though if you add some of the tiles on a shuttle to a leading edge you might come close. Tank armor can stop an incredible amount of energy. It takes a long 30mm diameter projectile made of depleted uranium or very hard and dense steel to penetrate a modern tank's frontal armor. This penetrator travels over a mile a second. Cross Reference: all sorts of shows repackaged and repeated on the History Channel.

Jeff
Who prefers a foxhole that doesn't attract so much attention. (Cross reference: "Willie and Joe" cartoons from WWII.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
It just seems to me that given that 500 years ago the major personal weapon was the knife and that portable firearms were -- at best -- in their infancy, that it seems odd for someone 500 years in the future to be carrying a slug-chucker.
Dakota Smith

It all depends on the technology of energy storage. Right now the energy is stored in chemical form and is converted to drive a projectile at a high velocity. One of the problems with current laser weapons technology is using a Boeing 747 to lug around the generator.

I can go Deer hunting, with a Laser weapon or a .30-30 rifle.

I'll mount the laser on an Army 2 1/2 ton truck, and pull a trailer with the generator on it. I'll stop, crank up the turbine engine, and then look around for the deer, who, being sensitive herbivores will have departed for the next county at the sound of the turbine spooling up.

With the .30-30 I can climb up a tree stand and be eminently well equipped for the mission with five rounds in the rifle and five rounds in my little pocket on the right side of my jeans.

Jeff
Who notes fixed cartridge weapons have only been practical since the middle of the 1800's, starting with the .22 Short rimfire round, which has been in continuous production ever since.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 5:11 PM

RINGWRAITH

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic. One of the simplest handguns ever made is the Glock 9mm. The Glock's complexity comes in the precise control over the shape of the plastic frame.

All I'm saying is, and I'm not a gun expert, but I meant the process and technology involved in building one; wouldn't there be more pieces involved in the manufacturing of a magazine versus a 6-shot cylinder? Plus getting all the materials and such? I had always assumed that there were less (moving) materials required to build a revolver--the weapon you mentioned that was built inside of a US prison sounds really interesting, I didn't know it could be done.

Plus there's the reliability of a revolver vs a semi-auto. Again, I mean their universe, not ours, and who has access to the better materials. Just speculating.

Thanks for your insight though. Hope I don't come across as totally ignorant.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 2:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic.

... wouldn't there be more pieces involved in the manufacturing of a magazine versus a 6-shot cylinder?
Plus there's the reliability of a revolver vs a semi-auto. Thanks for your insight though. Hope I don't come across as totally ignorant.

The cylinder of a typical (S&W Model 38) revolver has 11 parts, two of which, the extractor and cylinder require very close tolerance machining.
The five chambers and the extractor must be carefully bored to form five chambers aligned to thousanths of an inch.

A magazine has four pieces, spring, body, follower and base plate, everything except the spring is stamped out of steel, the body folded and welded, then place in a fixture and the lips ground to spec.

Jeff
Who was trained to repair the Model 10 S&W revolver and the M 1911A1 Colt Automatic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 3:16 AM

Now that I've dragged out my copy of "The Gun Digest Book of Exploded Firearms Drawings" which has nothing to do with exploding firearms.

For your edification: The Colt Peacemaker Single Action Army Revolver 1873 has 53 parts, including 7 washers.

The Colt M1911A1 Army Automatic has 55 parts, including one magazine with three parts.

A Winchester 1894 lever action carbine has 65 parts.

The British bolt action, Lee Enfield Rifle No. 4, Mark I* has 47 parts (I tossed this one in for our Commonwealth friends)

The Savage Single barrel Model 944 break action shotgun has 28 parts. Similar guns sell at Wal*Mart for around $100 US.

I note we have available today mass produced rifles and pistols originally designed over the last 300 years, from flintlocks to Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

Jeff
Who suspects serious breakdowns in the supply system in the Firefly Universe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 4:53 AM

RINGWRAITH

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

The cylinder of a typical (S&W Model 38) revolver has 11 parts, two of which, the extractor and cylinder require very close tolerance machining.
The five chambers and the extractor must be carefully bored to form five chambers aligned to thousanths of an inch.

A magazine has four pieces, spring, body, follower and base plate, everything except the spring is stamped out of steel, the body folded and welded, then place in a fixture and the lips ground to spec.

Thanks Jeff! I didn't realize it was as "simple" to make the semi vs the revolver. You surprised the missus and myself but that's a good thing.

I think in a post somewhere you mentioned that you were going to go over the FF episode to try to identify some of the weapons (even though to me some look like bastardized versions) so I'm just wondering if you had a chance to yet. I think this show will be more interesting than most, since they have technology to build fancy ships and floating trains but they still use weapons that fire a piece of lead.

No problem here, though.

I'll have to talk to Haken and see if we can get you an official title like "Firefly Fans Weapons Expert." Sorry, you probably won't get paid, though.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
I'll have to talk to Haken and see if we can get you an official title like "Firefly Fans Weapons Expert." Sorry, you probably won't get paid, though.

Oh Joss! Not That! I'll have to replace my pic with the one of me with the 20 gallon hat and the .44 Magnum!

Jeff
Who is famous for getting a picture in a nationally distributed book, showing only his back, knit hat and hearing protection.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 7:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
It all depends on the technology of energy storage.

I completely agree, which is part of wht I think slug-chuckers are inconsistent with an interstellar technology.

Quote:
Right now the energy is stored in chemical form and is converted to drive a projectile at a high velocity. One of the problems with current laser weapons technology is using a Boeing 747 to lug around the generator.

True, but the same is true of space travel.

Look, it took a 20-story building loaded with rocket fuel to put two men on the moon (and one in orbit of it).

The Serenity, by comparison, is an interstellar spacecraft -- meaning she's got enough energy to go faster than light, carrying a small crew, passengers, cargo, and so forth. Yet she's not even as long as a passenger train.

Nor did we see Serenity need to refuel, which implies that her power source is long-lived or regenerating.

So scale this down a bit: if a vessel the size of Serenity can go FTL with no problems, why can't a battery pack that would fit into the handle of, say, a M1911-sized grip not fire off at least ten shots of directed energy?

To me, the inconsistency is that any FTL civiliation that doesn't have a hideously huge power supply means that they've got some way to generate a lot of power in a very small space. If that's the case, why can't they do it with handheld battery packs?

Quote:
Who notes fixed cartridge weapons have only been practical since the middle of the 1800's, starting with the .22 Short rimfire round, which has been in continuous production ever since.

Indeed, which hints at the possibilities.

A technological society that went from flintlocks to cartriges to experimental (very fixed) laser, particle beams, and magnetic weapons in under 200 years. Why, then, would there be no significant development in weapons in the next 500 years?

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
Dakota, I invite you to think of a hand weapon that's both superior to a firearm, and not insanely expensive/complicated. I don't think you can though.

I can do it with a couple of "givens":

Given:

1. 500 years to tinker.

2. A technology capable of producing small interstellar FTL spacecraft.

Given this, I can imagine quite a lot of thinks superior to a slug-chucker. Here are a couple of notions regarding a directed energy weapon:

o No moving parts. This is a wonderful thing, particularly on the battlefield, where guns can become fouled and fail to operate. With a directed energy weapon, there's no round to feed, no slide, no hammer to be cocked (in the case of a revolver). Even the trigger mechanism can be electronic -- something that Remington actually has on the market in one of their rifles.

Moving parts suck. The more you have, the greater a potential for failure.

o No limit to range. A slug-chucker is limited by all kinds of things. My Kimber Custom Classic, for example, has an effective range of a bit over a hundred yards, because it becomes difficult to predict bullet drop beyond that range. A laser has no such limitiation -- line the target up in the sites at 10 yards or 100 yards. There's no reason to take into account weather conditions, either -- a laser's going to fire straight unless it comes within the influence of a massive gravitational field on the order of a star.

o No recoil. My carry gun is a Taurus M917 revolver in .357Magnum. This gun has a 3" barrel and is a small frame, and let me tell you: it kicks. I absolutely won't carry anything more anemic for personal defense, but if I could get the same stopping power with a bolt of directed energy, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

o No sound. Contrary to what they show you on TV, guns are loud. I typically fire seven rounds through my Taurus M917 on an outdoor range, on the theory that if I ever have to use it to defend myself, I won't have time to get hearing protection. My ears ring for two hours afterward.

And I never fire them without hearing protection at an indoor range, because I'll be half deaf for hours.

Now, during the heat of the moment, adrenaline does something to deaden your hearing to loud noises. On a couple of occasions, I've had to finish a buck with my Kimber because a badly-placed shot from my Winchester Model 70 rifle didn't do the job. While loud, the noise isn't as bad when I'm shooting calmly at the range.

However, if I could get the same stopping power in a silent weapon, I'd happily do it.

o No need for cartriges. This is the one that really appeals to me. The "ammo" of a directed energy weapon is its power source: in this case, probably a rechargable battery the size of a M1911 clip. If I didn't have to carry around all kinds of ammo cans, I'd be one happy camper. Bring my carry gun home, drop the day's battery into the charger, replace it with a fresh one, and reholster the weapon. Sounds like heaven to me.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:

2. A technology capable of producing small interstellar FTL spacecraft.

I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:31 AM

TERAPH

While small energy weapons may be possible in this time, there are a few things to remember:

1) Those who lost the war and didn't join the Alliance probably don't have them (i.e., Mal and company);

2) Items that small would require manufacturing facilities not available on most of the outer worlds (things like the maglev for the train are probably made off-world and imported);

3) Because of the scale needed for manufacturing, it would be easier for the authorities to control and limit production and distribution. I can make a rifle in a machine shop in my basement; power cells and microprocessors need more elaborate facilities.

4) They are harder to repair. Sure, they have no moving parts, but they do have more elaborate construction (e.g., microprocessors and lasers). If your CD player and 1960s turn-table both broke, which would be simpler to fix if you had to do it yourself?

5) They're less efficient. Even if the technology to do it exists, it's still more power and complexity than a traditional firearm.

6) They're harder to reload. Access to electricity is not a guarantee, and the amount of power needed to run one of those weapons is a significant road block. If I'm trapped on some backwater planet, I'm more likely to find (or be able to construct) facilities to repair my pistol or knife. When the chip that controls the light intensity of my energy weapon dies, who's going to replace it?

I don't know the state of energy weapon technology on Firefly, but I'm betting it isn't good enough to possessed by the crew of Serenity or those with whom they interact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:41 AM

RINGWRAITH

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.

Those are some good points. I wonder how Joss is going to explain this? In the B5 universe there was no FTL technology but everyone used "hyperspace" to get from A-B faster.

Hope he can come up with an explanation for this one. I don't mind revolvers and such, that's cool, but he might have some 'splaining to do to explain how his ships get to their destinations quickly.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Those who lost the war and didn't join the Alliance probably don't have them (i.e., Mal and company);

Um ... why?

The parallels to the American Civil War and the war with the Alliance are striking (I assume they're intentional). The South didn't lose all their arms back to the flintlock after losing to the North. Why would this be true of the browncoats?

Also, if this is the case, that the loser are being denied arms, there ought to be an enormous amount of money to be had by the Serenity's crew in just running guns to former browncoat worlds.

It's a truism that whenever government outlaws something, it creates a black market that gets filled (see Prohibition, the War on Some Drugs, victim disarmament, and so on). Surely this would be as true 500 years from now as it was 500 years ago.

Quote:
Items that small would require manufacturing facilities not available on most of the outer worlds (things like the maglev for the train are probably made off-world and imported);

You might have a point with this one.

Quote:
Because of the scale needed for manufacturing, it would be easier for the authorities to control and limit production and distribution. I can make a rifle in a machine shop in my basement; power cells and microprocessors need more elaborate facilities.

You might also have a point here. However, that simply increases the potential profit in gun-running, IMHO. If the Alliance is into victim disarmament that heavily, then a good directed energy weapon will be worth its weight in gold. An entire cargo hold full of them ought to buy a planet or two.

Quote:
They are harder to repair. Sure, they have no moving parts, but they do have more elaborate construction (e.g., microprocessors and lasers). If your CD player and 1960s turn-table both broke, which would be simpler to fix if you had to do it yourself?

I'll concede you that one outright. Good point.

Quote:
They're less efficient. Even if the technology to do it exists, it's still more power and complexity than a traditional firearm.

I'd argue that as we're on the threshold of directed energy weapons right now, in another 500 years, the complexity involved will be minimal.

Quote:
[bI don't know the state of energy weapon technology on Firefly, but I'm betting it isn't good enough to possessed by the crew of Serenity or those with whom they interact.

Again, it's 500 years in the future, building from a point -- right now -- when we're on the cusp of directed energy weapons. Indeed, if government will stop immorally regulating private firearms inventors out of existence, I'm certain that the next John Moses Browning out there will get me a directed-energy sidearm inside of ten years.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.
Those are some good points. I wonder how Joss is going to explain this? In the B5 universe there was no FTL technology but everyone used "hyperspace" to get from A-B faster.

According to the v.o., it is a single solar system that they've found with lots of planets, lots of satellites that are Earth-like or terraformed to be so. Also Serenity keeps to the frontier planets/moons, so it's range of distance is limited there as well. No FTL is necessary.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 10:55 AM

TERAPH

Quote:
The parallels to the American Civil War and the war with the Alliance are striking (I assume they're intentional). The South didn't lose all their arms back to the flintlock after losing to the North. Why would this be true of the browncoats?

In the time of the Civil War, finding support for denying a man his arms would have been much harder. Also, Mal is one of the people who didn't want to be with the Alliance. That reduces his access to resources that would be available to people who a) support the Alliance and b) live closer to the Alliance's core worlds. It's not just a matter of the losers having their guns taken away. It's a matter of the losers not having access.

Quote:
Also, if this is the case, that the loser are being denied arms, there ought to be an enormous amount of money to be had by the Serenity's crew in just running guns to former browncoat worlds.

This assumes there is access to such items on a scale that would make the gun-running profitable.

In Prohibition, we outlawed something that could be made in a bath tub.

The war on drugs and restrictions on firearms do create a vacuum. However, there are forces that can fill that vacuum. Other nations may overlook or support the creation and transport of drugs and illegal weapons. But how many other powers are there besides the Alliance? Who is filling the void? It would have to be someone with the facilities to make these items.

This may be another reason that six-shooters are in vogue: They are easier to make and introduce into a very large market.

We also don't know yet what restrictions the Alliance places on manufacturing or trade. Unless there are more large powers (criminal, corporate or governmental) who operate in defiance of the Alliance, it would seem that there is only one power with the resources to create such weapons--and thus manage their distribution.

Quote:
I'd argue that as we're on the threshold of directed energy weapons right now, in another 500 years, the complexity involved will be minimal.

I disagree. Complexity is likely to increase over time. Just look at how much of a modern car is computer controlled, even compared to one made 20 years ago. GM is looking at a new car that is completely wire controlled (i.e., computers run everything).

Energy weapons, to work properly, would need to precisely control the energy. That would be done with computers--microchips or nanotech. Even when such manufacture becomes common-place, the facilities to do that manufacture would likely be controlled by the government with the resources to afford it.

I'll be interested, should the show take us into core Alliance territory, to see how advanced their technology is when compared to the outer worlds.

Quote:
Again, it's 500 years in the future, building from a point -- right now -- when we're on the cusp of directed energy weapons. Indeed, if government will stop immorally regulating private firearms inventors out of existence, I'm certain that the next John Moses Browning out there will get me a directed-energy sidearm inside of ten years.

Of course, the government is also likely to just hire the next John Moses Browning, and he'll make his gun for them. We may be on the verge of directed-energy weapons, but how likely is it that the public will ever use them? We've had shoulder-mounted anti-tank weapons for while, but I don't have one. (Yes, that was an extreme example.)

I could get one off the black market, but is it worth the cost and risk? The same question applies to Firefly. Is the market, availability, and effectiveness of these weapons great enough justify the risk in illegally making or transporting them?

I don't know. There's information we don't yet have about this world. Was there a Dark Age when the world took a step back in knowledge? Was there a world government that halted or slowed weapons production? Did resources become scarce? Were manufacturing facilities destroyed during the war? If this is like the Civil War, is there a massive Reconstruction underway that is limiting the availability of items not essential to infrastructure?

Again, I don't know. I'm playing Devil's Advocate on some of this. It is certainly something with which we can have some fun theorizing and studying the possibilities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Again, I don't know. I'm playing Devil's Advocate on some of this. It is certainly something with which we can have some fun theorizing and studying the possibilities.

I don't know, either -- and don't mistake my levelling these criticisms as major criticisms. As long as there ends up being a plausible reason for these things, I'll be happy.

I'm already happy with the show's libertarian bent as regards politics. That there is a continuing character who actually owns her own body thrills me no end -- and if Whedon really wants to make me happy, he can do a scene where a couple of the characters are lighting up a joint in their off hours and no one makes a bigger deal of it than one would having a beer.

I'm utterly thrilled with what I think is the first realistic portrayal of frontier worlds.

I'm really happy that no one onscreen, from the local sheriff to the Alliance jack-booted thugs, has tried to disarm anyone just for carrying.

I'm really thrilled that for once, there's an SF show in production that doesn't leave me hurling epithets like, "Goddamned Statist propaganda!" at my TV for an hour straight.

I think the show has a ton of potential, and the fact that I'm spending a fair amount of time trying to find mpegs of the episode "Serenity" is proof of that.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 5:55 AM

I'm surprised at you DekotaSmith!

You levelled such fine points and a very good argument and then you strangely decided you concede some.

Six shooters and pump action rifles in the 26th century is plain stupid! Yes, I know I’m a git for saying it, but I honestly believe that Joss Whedon made an idiotic oversight!

The only explanation I can think of for such stupidity is that there will be some fine (and lengthy) exposition that will explain things in the next few episodes.

To simply say that they use 'slug-chuckers' because they are low-tech naively assumes that there has been (in 500 years!) little advance in say the production of energy cells (batteries) or the production of alternative power sources - How many new power sources have we found in the last five hundred years?

NOBODY will think of firing a projectile weapon in 500 years. It's almost an impossible concept. The idea that someone would take the time and trouble to fabricate an intricate weapon (which in all probability could backfire and kill them) when they probably have cheap, rechargeable energy cells and a few disposable silicon chips, to put together a weapon which could demolish a house in the blink of an eye.

The question, which would you, find easier to repair, a phono record player or a CD is an incorrect analogy, you compare technology which is say 30 years difference, in Firefly, the difference is 500 years.

If a group of people are able to exist on a frontier, travel around on advanced trains and receive spaceships and visitors from other worlds, they will be able to afford the stunningly cheap resources such as a few silicon chips and a battery FAR more than the resources for smelting and fabricating 'slug chuckers'.

Can you imagine firing a six-shooter (or Zoe’s pump action rifle) on a spaceship! How stupid would that be! At least on Babylon 5 they had the idea of the PPG and much as I hate Star Trek, at least they made some effort to make conflict believable!

I personally believe that the use of projectile weapons (in case you hadn't guessed :) ) is a flawed one and that it's only our love for the venerable Mr Whedon that makes us want to defend his judgment.

I'm quite prepared to forgive the dude, if only for the silent Serenity in space. I think that takes nerve - the firearms stuff is just a cheap trick to spend less money!

The big question we should ask is? Will the Alliance have energy weapons? I really, really hope they do!

PS. DakotaSmith news.binaries.multimedia.scifi
has a poor copy of Serenity. I downloaded it this morning and it’s terrific! Much better than The Train Job.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:33 AM

HAPLO721

I don't really see how using firearms on a spaceship would be that risky. Certainly a vessel constructed for the rigors of space travel would have a thick enough hull to take a .45 without rupturing! The only exception might be the windows, but those appear to only be installed on the bridge and may very well be constructed of a high-tech transparent metal or something that's nearly as resistant to gunfire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:33 AM

HAPLO721

These forums don't seem to notify you when your message has been posted...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:40 AM

Hi haplo721.
(I just delete the duplicate post, that's all you can do I guess )

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
I don't really see how using firearms on a spaceship would be that risky. Certainly a vessel constructed for the rigors of space travel would have a thick enough hull to take a .45 without rupturing!

I meant firing inside a spaceship. If I shot someone with a .45 in the Serenity, it'd blow their head of and the bullet would probably richochet around the hull and knock my head off too. If not, you can bet it would do some pretty awfull damage to something!

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
I personally believe that the use of projectile weapons (in case you hadn't guessed :) ) is a flawed one and that it's only our love for the venerable Mr Whedon that makes us want to defend his judgment.

I'm quite prepared to forgive the dude, if only for the silent Serenity in space. I think that takes nerve - the firearms stuff is just a cheap trick to spend less money!

He's not Steven Spielberg making "Minority Report." This is television. There's a limit to what he can afford. Plus, the "firearms stuff" is part of a western motif. Did you get that there was a motif?

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
He's not Steven Spielberg making "Minority Report." This is television. There's a limit to what he can afford.

Wow! I hadn't thought of that!

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
Plus, the "firearms stuff" is part of a western motif. Did you get that there was a motif?

Hehe. Yep, I guess I got the root'n toot'n motif. It's the silly idea to put six-shooters and pump action rifles in a sci fi show set 500 years in the future that I don't get.

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. Are you saying it's ok to put something unrealistic in the show provided it fits with the motif? If so, then why aren't you complaining that there ain't any injuns? .... What about some cavalry with lots of blue clad soldiers carrying the US flag (with thirteen stars only o'course - coz there were only thirteen states then - he'd have to make it realistic now wouldn't he!?)

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.

My theory is they used wormhole technology (not too far fetched) to send the "pioneers" into the Alliance solar system. My guess is a wormhole is made only on a very rare occasion, and the Earth is no longer a part of the Alliance system's concern (if it still exists, that is).

The planets are all in one solar system, ruled by 2 central planets, with many habitable moons available for terra-formation. Thus, FTL transportation might not be needed.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:22 AM

Quote:

Are you saying it's ok to put something unrealistic in the show provided it fits with the motif?

There's a thing called artistic freedom, you may not have heard of it. It would be a good thing if you could suspend your disbelief a little to accomodate for that artistic expression.

I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift

).

Maybe I'm not seeing something...

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
The planets are all in one solar system, ruled by 2 central planets, with many habitable moons available for terra-formation. Thus, FTL transportation might not be needed.

Which would be born out by the comments of the two blue handed geezers at the end of The Train Job. They said, "We haven't travelled 87 million miles etc."

They made it sound as if it were a long way and yet, in terms of interstellar travel it's a few feet!

The only contradiction to that Novagrass, is the drunk dude in the bar at the beginning. He talked about the Alliance and the 'new Galaxy' - not sure how that fits.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:24 AM

HERITAGE

As I understand it, current spacecraft have rather thin hulls, since the difference in pressure between inside and hard vacuum isn't actually that great; deepsea vessels require much thicker hulls. If you fired a slug-thrower or a laser in the Space Shuttle, everyone would proably die.

Firefly-era hulls might well be thicker and/or tougher - for one thing, radiation sheilding would be necessary, and since humanity has just ended a period of warfare, reinforced hulls would probably be a good idea. I'm betting there won't be any forcefields or sheilds either, so micrometeor impacts would require a pretty tough hull, too.

All that being said, the main reason for the guns, I'm sure, is for the western look. Also, the brutality of the frontier seems much grittier when you blow out someone's leg as opposed to neatly searing it.

Personally, none of the tech seems as advanced as I'd think it would be in 500 years - the ships strike me as being more what I'd expect to see in 200 years or less. I sometimes think they just choose the dates in SF without giving much thought to progress.

Mal: "Have you got time to do my hair?"
Inara: "Out."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:

I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift ).

More specifically, humanoid alien life. That most ludicrous assumption in all of sci-fi.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. Are you saying it's ok to put something unrealistic in the show provided it fits with the motif? If so, then why aren't you complaining that there ain't any injuns? .... What about some cavalry with lots of blue clad soldiers carrying the US flag (with thirteen stars only o'course - coz there were only thirteen states then - he'd have to make it realistic now wouldn't he!?)

What Novagrass said. You can complain about scientific accuracy all you want, but it misses the point. Joss isn't holding this show up, saying "I have seen the future. And it is FIREFLY."

EDIT TO ADD:

Quote:
The only contradiction to that Novagrass, is the drunk dude in the bar at the beginning. He talked about the Alliance and the 'new Galaxy' - not sure how that fits.

Book's V.O. distinctly says "solar system." The drunk guy clearly was not "burdened with an overabundance of schooling." Also, the usage jibes with modern-day hyperbole. You don't really think the Miss Universe pageant is actually as inclusive as the title would suggest?

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift ).

There's science fiction and there's science fantasy. You should checkout the definitions.

I can't understand why you want to (interestingly) argue the finer points solar or stallar setting for the series - and yet you think it silly to talk about realism in the show!

The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

Ok, ok. Let me explain it another way....

Another cool sci fi part of the show is the Serenity engins. They're like jet engines, they have turbines and exhaust manifolds and work in both the atmosphere and space (there is no air in space so you don't need exhaust manifolds). I think that this is an excellent bit of sci fi, it explains whey a ship can travel in space and land on the surface of the planet.

But, if they have the technology to build ships with multi-facetted engines, why are they using pump action shotguns and six-shooters to defend their lives! To me, that is unrealistic, it's sci fi for the motif's sake - I don't think that's a good thing.

You guys are being too defensive without being objective!

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:40 AM

HERITAGE

Personally, I'd like to believe that in the vastness of space, there is intelligent life out there - I just think that a) we'll probably never run into it, and b) if we did, it would be so unlike our concept of 'intelligence' as to be completely incomprehensible.

Mal: "Have you got time to do my hair?"
Inara: "Out."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

Okay, then it's science fantasy. End of discusion.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:

There's a thing called artistic freedom, you may not have heard of it. It would be a good thing if you could suspend your disbelief a little to accomodate for that artistic expression.

I think you mean artistic license. We're not talking about censorship here, we're talking about making little comprojses with realism. And you're right, every storyteller exercise artistic license. It's really not practical to tell a story, especially a science fiction story, without it.

But there's also an artistic concept that involves working within specified limits, and viewing those limits as an integral part of your work. There's a fancy word for it that escapes me, but you know what I mean. It's what poets do when they forgo the expressive freedom of prose for the arbitrary restrictions of verse. I've heard Josh Whedon say he was doing the same thing when he portrayed a lesbian relationship on Buffy within the restrictions imposed by WB's censors.

In Firefly, Whedon's doing much the same thing, with a lot more self-imposed restrictions, based on the assumptions of "hard" science fiction. It's a whole lot easier to do Science Fiction if you just make up your reality as you go along. That's become the accepted thing with other space TV shows -- and a big reason they've become so boring. But if you impose a lot of interesting rules upon yourself, you have more work to, but also a more satisfying result.

And of course, Mister Whedon was never one to take the easy way out!

Quote:

I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift ).

Aliens are not simply fantasy. They've been an accepted part of both science an literature for over 300 years, ever since it was discovered that earth was just one world of many. It's only in the last 50 years that scientists have begun to question the assumption that the universe is big enough to hold all those alien races. And it's only in the last decade that this questioning has been taken up by the more literate science fiction writers.

Firely is drastically better science fiction than Star Trek. But not just because Firefly has better science. If Star Trek just had a lot of bad science, it'd just be more artistic license. Star Trek uses bad science to hide behind, to allow sloppy writing and absence of simple logic and storytelling.

Also, when you're talking about Firefly and similar fiction, you have to account for the geek factor. Josh Whedon is a self-identified geek, and as such he's one of those people who actually enjoy arguing about obscure technical details. Like what kind of gun you can safely fire on a spaceship.

Since you, Dylan, seem to get terminally bored by such convesation, I would tend to identify you as a non-geek. Or at least a non-geek with respect to science, technology, and the "hard" varieties of science fiction. Which is perfectly OK, as long as you acknowledge that the geek and non-geek ways of looking at things are equally valid. And indeed, if Firefly is to succeed, it will have to appeal to both camps.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:

There's science fiction and there's science fantasy. You should checkout the definitions.

To be honest, I see no difference. Fiction is a made up story. Fantasy is a part of fiction. Therefore, Science Fantasy is a type of Science Fiction. Perhaps you're the one who should be looking up definitions?

Quote:
I can't understand why you want to (interestingly) argue the finer points solar or stallar setting for the series - and yet you think it silly to talk about realism in the show!

Hey, did I ever say I wasn't absurd? I believe I was making an observation that "we," meaning all of us (including myself), are holding a double standard. People seem to believe humanoid alien life is fine as a form of artistic license, but when guns are used, we get up in arms. This is what I find absurd, and I myself fall victim to it. I apologize if I was unclear.

Quote:
The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

I have given up defending the realism of Firefly (as of yesterday, that is). For god's sake, it's just a TV show, I told myself.

I recognize that there are unrealistic elements in Firefly, and I will deal with them. Though, the firearms issue seems to bother me the least. (Narssistic personal note: What will bother me is when they explore the big cities (in Serenity we are briefly introduced to this) and the more unrealistic social elements of the series show up. I feel I will be in the minority when disecting the social structure, while I seem to be in the minority on evaluating the importance of the firearms issue. This could be due to the fact that I have studied future social developents, and seem to care little for the technological aspects. Alas, I will try to ignore this issue when it comes up)

Quote:
But, if they have the technology to build ships with multi-facetted engines, why are they using pump action shotguns and six-shooters to defend their lives! To me, that is unrealistic, it's sci fi for the motif's sake - I don't think that's a good thing.

The answer: Artistic license. I bring this up again. Joss Whedon set out not only to make a science fiction show. He set out to make a western as well. There are areas where these two genres will not overlap, and thusly, unrealistic elements for the sake of the story will be used.

Quote:
You guys are being too defensive without being objective!

You may have a point there

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 10:14 AM

Quote:
Book's V.O. distinctly says "solar system." The drunk guy clearly was not "burdened with an overabundance of schooling." Also, the usage jibes with modern-day hyperbole. You don't really think the Miss Universe pageant is actually as inclusive as the title would suggest?

God I hope not. Too many trademark hassles already!

You make a good point. It would make perfect sense for Drunk Guy to be as ignorant of cosmology as the TV Guide person who describe Firefly as an "intergalactic" adventure.

On the other hand, Book also tells us that there are hundreds of terraformed worlds. Hard to imagine a single solar system providing all these. And I don't recall Book specifically saying that all the worlds were in one solar system. But I might have missed that. Anyone got a transcript?

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

Also, when you're talking about Firefly and similar fiction, you have to account for the geek factor. Josh Whedon is a self-identified geek, and as such he's one of those people who actually enjoy arguing about obscure technical details. Like what kind of gun you can safely fire on a spaceship.

Since you, Dylan, seem to get terminally bored by such convesation, I would tend to identify you as a non-geek. Or at least a non-geek with respect to science, technology, and the "hard" varieties of science fiction. Which is perfectly OK, as long as you acknowledge that the geek and non-geek ways of looking at things are equally valid. And indeed, if Firefly is to succeed, it will have to appeal to both camps.

You make an interesting point, Zicsoft, one that I've never considered. You have caused me to think about a few things.

I believe I've realised something about my "geek" factor that I don't believe I've ever realised prior to this. Sure, I may not be interested in the technological aspects of fiction. I most certainly do find myself supremely bored by conversations of this nature.

I do, however, find myself often arguing about the more social aspects of things, much like the tech-geeks seem to argue over what would happen if you fired a gun inside of a spaceship. I find myself constantly drawn to the details of human life, and I suppose this is what draws me to Science Fiction. Perhaps this makes me a non-geek to the tech geeks out there because it seems very unusual for a social debate about science fiction to ever present itself. I apologize if I put off a bored attitude. I suppose this isn't the optimal place for me to be arguing, though it seems that because there are few social debators who enjoy science fiction, I must align myself with the tech debators, of which there are plenty in the science fiction communtiy.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--Who, after re-reading his post, realises just how unbareably narcissistic he can be.

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
NOBODY will think of firing a projectile weapon in 500 years. It's almost an impossible concept.
Can you imagine firing a six-shooter (or Zoe’s pump action rifle) on a spaceship! How stupid would that be!

I disagree. For all the reasons listed in Traveller (The RPG) and the Dorsai series.

"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

(BTW Zoe was carrying a Lever action. She should either get a longer stock or change ordnance.)

I suspect there are technological reasons for even the Alliance troops to be carrying common automatic weapons from the 20th Century.

Jeff
Who looked at crossbows last time he was at the sporting goods store. They work better than ever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
I disagree. For all the reasons listed in Traveller (The RPG) and the Dorsai series.

"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

I see what your saying, but I honestly believe that a solid state gadget is less likely to break down than a mechanical one.

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
(BTW Zoe was carrying a Lever action. She should either get a longer stock or change ordnance.)

I stand corrected. Thanks.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 11:57 AM

Quote:
I do, however, find myself often arguing about the more social aspects of things, much like the tech-geeks seem to argue over what would happen if you fired a gun inside of a spaceship.

Exactly.

I can't actually take credit for this theory of geekiness. It sort of grew up when I was listening to fans of Baroque music argue over whether JS Bach was a "music geek". (My opinion, he indeed, but he wasn't just a music geek.) I think every discipline has its "geeks", who pursue the technical details of it with a passion that everybody else finds a little scary.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 12:58 PM