next »

[Damocles]

Is it just me, or is Claud Southend a tribute to Spider Jerusalem from Transmetropolitan?  I note the tatoo on the bald head (different than Spider's though), and the small lenses on top of the regular glasses (exactly the same shape as Spider's).

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/10565340@N04/3849806249 and http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=28366

So, coincidence or not?  In any event, awesome reference...

[Damocles]

It appears UncleRice asked the question before I did.  I blame my poor search skills.  Apologies to UncleRice.

[UncleRice]

Well, if nothing else, I'm not the only one to notice. It sounds like Luna would be fairly familiar to Spider too. It now just a question of whether Claud has the same high moral standards of Spider.

[Andreas]

I like O'Murchada's brand of "log-rolling" security.
I mean, it's clear that he was not surprised by the "disappearance", and that he knew exactly that the parties interested in the contents of the bag would be unable to pass up the opportunity. He also, obviously, knew that he would be able to change their minds, and that they would not have been made aware of the potential repercussions by whoever influenced them to grab the bags for "disappearance".

He understands security in a way few people do:
Even with a gun, you can be unsafe. Even without a gun, you can be safe.
The trick is to know one's environment, to know the fluxes of events, and how to surf 'em. At that level of personal securing, the gun becomes just a tool, a convenience.
That's the thing : I would not be comfortable in a wild-west style rule-of-the-ruthless kind of world (which is definitely a possibility, with or without guns), even though I know I can be a lot more ruthless than the next guy over. A lot of people who oppose gun proliferation have that same feeling.
What remains is to show that experiencing life to the fullest, seeing, respecting and caring about one's fellow humans, acting with full purpose; these things are all good - they promote real security, they promote true freedom and finally, they promote having a good time in one's lifetime. And then the guns of others stop being important.

Don't go with the flow. But do permit the flow go with you, if your paths happen to coincide.

[Scott]

My experience has been that people who say stuff like "wild-west style rule-of-the-ruthless kind of world" don't know what the "wild west" was really like. Except for clashes with the Indians, and despite a few highly-sensationalized dust-ups in places like Dodge City, the actual murder rate per capita was far lower in the old West than it was in the Eastern cities at the same time. The biggest challenges by far were surviving the elements and working very long hours to build working ranches, farms, and related businesses.

The gun (or the zringer) is indeed a tool, which can be used for good or ill. But in the L-5 City culture, it is also a symbol of one's understanding that self-defense is a basic bodily function as personal as eating, breathing and defecating, and cannot be safely delegated to others. Violent crime is rare in L-5 City, and most people go through their lives without thinking much about the deadly weapons they wear on their fingers, much as we drive around without thinking much about the spare tires we carry in our automobiles. But if you get into trouble, that spare tire or gun or zringer becomes really damn important.

[Andreas]

Lack of population density is a great peace-keeper 
The "wild west" is a trope of course, I realize that. But it's also a powerful image, which has been embedded in us.
We could have the same image about the feudal ages, of course, in cities back then murder rates were sky high. Even small danish towns made NYs worst neightborhoods seem peaceful. Since people came into the cities to trade from far away, the murder rates could easily be at 10% of the permanent population.
But that's not a good myth in the way the "wild west" is - our violent fantasy interrupted by the physical exertion and ickiness involved in killing someone with a knife or club. When they created the "wild west" myth, it was the nonchalantness of the handgun which made it so powerful.
So that's why the west gets picked on in this respect.

About the zringer; I think you caught the irrational part of zringer withdrawal pretty well; it's clear that she's not just wondering about the loss of a tool; she feels like a part of her has been taken away. It's clear that she's been taking it for granted, and even embedded it into her self-view.
Anyway, it's good to know that people in L5 don't have to worry about "monsters from the Id", "accidentally" firing the weapon during emotional stress - that would be freaky.

[Scott]

In our country over the last decade or so we had a wave of states liberalizing their gun laws -- mostly, allowing people to carry concealed after getting a permit from their local sheriff. Opponents predicted a wave of gun-fights in the streets over minor auto accidents, that their "monsters from the id" would take over and cause rampant carnage.

The laws passed anyway, and the carnage didn't happen. I can tell you from personal experience that carrying a deadly weapon makes one more careful about getting into confrontations, and more eager to settle disputes peacefully. I don't ever want to kill anybody, but I will if the only possible alternative is getting killed or seeing someone I care about seriously hurt or killed.

[Andreas]

I can imagine.
I think many people make the mistake of comparing to how people wield that other lethal tool, the automobile, not realizing that the gun is lethal when used properly (but serves it purpose without use) - while the car is lethal when not used properly (and serves no purpose without use) - two rather big differences.

Now... how about them Gorillaz? 

[oigoleral]

We could have the same image about the feudal ages, of course, in cities back then murder rates were sky high. Even small danish towns made NYs worst neightborhoods seem peaceful. Since people came into the cities to trade from far away, the murder rates could easily be at 10% of the permanent population.

How do you compute a 10% murder rate? Can you in any way back that kind of number?

Could it be that the feudal ages is also an image impressed on you with no regard for history?

oi

[Andreas]

How about this: A town back then wasn't a place you lived in. It was a place you went to, did business and other stuff, and then you left for home.
So, at any one time the town would have a passing-through population that could be bigger than the permanent resident count. All these people passing through, well, some of them wanted to cut loose, and since they also didn't have safe homes to stay inside, they were easy pickings for scum, as well - locals or passers-by.
Obviously, the murders are counted where they happen, not where the victims lived.
Things weren't very picturesque back then.

Actually I have heard a report of over a thousand killings (murder was used only for a killing performed in secrecy, so if you hit someone with a club it wasn't murder) for a town reported to have had only a couple of thousand residents in 1700. A big market town would support (and be passed through by) a population over ten times its own.

And then there were vendettas of course. If a couple of big houses started feuding you could expect maybe tens of killings, which will then already account for several percent of the population.

[oigoleral]

How about this...

So you made the number up. It's OK, as far as it's clear.
If a market town has 1000% of its population during a fair and 10% die, its 1% of the people involved. It still seams to big a number but its a very different picture.

People die from many causes and tales of the time tell more about deaths from illness, than from violence, war included.

If one looks to a very large period of the history and include attacks to market towns, one will find bigger numbers than 10%, but from this to a murder rate, there is a big difference.

[Andreas]

Yeah, it's an insanely high number, I don't blame you for doubting it.
It's not about a single fair, though, if the town has a thousand residents, and every day a hundred visitors pass through... not all of those hundred visitors will be the same every day, some go through once, some come back once a week, some once a month and some come once a year. For the 10%, all that's needed is one killing per three days. So an average visitor would have about 0,3% chance of getting killed, which isn't so incredible anymore.

One thing is to give perspective is also that things were very different before that Black Death.
Europe was overpopulated and groaning under the pressure of people.
Not enough food, not enough space, not enough work... at the same time there was a general transition from close-knit clan territories to mixed-up areas without the peace-keeping force the clan structure provided - but with all of the cultural views on use of violence that the clans had promoted.
The clans had to say that any stranger is a potential threat, and that any slight must be answered in violence. That worked because the clans had the same neighbors year after year, a balance of terror develops, and people know how the other ones react.
When you throw people who think like that into a completely alien environment where there are no "cultural transponders" to tell friend from foe... things will get messy.

One reason why people don't tell tales about it is that it was normal, nothing to raise an eyebrow over. Historians of the time didn't make a fuss about it, and sure enough, the plagues and the wars killed off even more people, and more spectacularly, many at once.