Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: quadibloc on January 04, 2011, 01:22:15 am

Title: Coventry
Post by: quadibloc on January 04, 2011, 01:22:15 am
From the current strip, and the previous one, I see that the maxim "An armed society is a polite society" does not fully apply to this one... instead, the principles of another Heinlein work apply with respect to this issue.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Iron Lightning on January 04, 2011, 01:31:36 am
Yeah, I prefer this sort of society over a "fightin' words" sort.  You know, before I started reading these comics I never would've thought that an anarchic society would get so caught up in technicalities  :P.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: quadibloc on January 04, 2011, 01:47:33 am
To me, a "fighting words" sort of society is simply... natural. Since one places a man's life in danger by, say, accusing him of being homosexual, doing so is placing him  under an obligation to react.

So, to simplify matters, and avoid using this as a trick to provoke someone into a fight he would lose, the simplest remedy is: if someone calls you, or one of your friends or fellow citizens, a homosexual, or a whore, or something else that would place that person's social reputation in grave jeopardy... shooting him in the back, dead, is an appropriate and perfectly legal response.

If society ever evolved to the point where it was so advanced that people could just laugh off such accusations in safety - that one incident of not reacting to an accusation of being gay with anger wouldn't lead to a whispering campaign and ultimate ostracism - things might be different. But as long as there is reason to doubt that this could never happen, people must be free to defend themselves as may be necessary.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 04, 2011, 05:48:59 am
To me, a "fighting words" sort of society is simply... natural.

Why am I not surprised?  ::)
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: mellyrn on January 04, 2011, 06:27:45 am
One does not place another in physical danger by calling him, say, a pedophile to his face and in public

Calling someone names to his face (or near it) and in public is baiting, pure and simple.  May I ask you a question, quadibloc?  When you overhear someone else being called an ugly name, do you automatically believe the baiter?  Just completely shelve your own judgment and accept the insulter's?  Say to yourself, "Gosh, I didn't know that [about the recipient]!  Glad I was here to get this important information!"

I really can't see a whisper campaign getting started from people witnessing an obvious attempt at baiting. 

The insulter puts his own reputation more at risk than the insultee's.  How much respect do you have, now, for Carlos?  For Carlos as compared to for Rhonda?

And when the witnesses also see the "fish" declining to take the bait, and the insulter thereby being made to lose the exchange, the insulter has made a fool of himself.  In public.  And that will get passed around, because it will be funny in the retelling.

As a side note, if you do take the bait, you're announcing your personal emotional vulnerabilities to the whole world.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 04, 2011, 08:50:57 am

Calling someone names to his face (or near it) and in public is baiting, pure and simple.  May I ask you a question, quadibloc?  When you overhear someone else being called an ugly name, do you automatically believe the baiter?  Just completely shelve your own judgment and accept the insulter's?  Say to yourself, "Gosh, I didn't know that [about the recipient]!  Glad I was here to get this important information!"

I really can't see a whisper campaign getting started from people witnessing an obvious attempt at baiting.  

The insulter puts his own reputation more at risk than the insultee's.

I see this as a cultural issue. Some places, if somebody tries to pick a fight with you and you refuse, you can look like a coward. When there's no doubt you'd win easily then not so much. Other places it isn't like that.

I turned down some gratuitous fights in eighth grade because it looked stupid to me to fight over words. So some guys kept pushing until they found something I would fight over. Looking back it would have been easier to do it their way when there was nothing riding on it. But I thought I was right and they were wrong.

I don't see that there's anything "natural" about a society like that. It's just one way things can go. Would a society where people habitually carry guns do it like that? Would they have fistfights where you prove you aren't scared to fight a bigger guy who insults you, and everybody trusts the guy who's losing not to shoot? Everybody trusts the winner not to take it too far? I can imagine it either way, but it seems to me it takes less of a social consensus to take serious concerns to arbitration, unless they turn into gunfights.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: mellyrn on January 04, 2011, 09:48:15 am
Quote
I see this as a cultural issue. Some places, if somebody tries to pick a fight with you and you refuse, you can look like a coward.

Oh, true.  Good point.  I need to travel more.

Even then, though, you don't have to play it their way.  If you think your only options are 'go ahead and fight as if you'd taken the bait' or 'decline to fight and look like a coward', then the problem is in your own head and your own limitations.  I most enjoy fight scenes in novels &c where the recipient throws a complete monkey wrench into the instigator's pattern . . .

 . . . aaand of course I can't think of a good example at the moment, so I'll settle for the knife fight in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid."  It ain't a perfect example, but what the hey.

A real-life example involved an old professor of mine, a psychiatrist and psychology teacher.  He had this schizophrenic patient, "Jim", who was doing OK on his meds, so was out & about.  So it's late afternoon; the only ones left in Dr. Shutt's building were himself, who was a middle-aged overweight out-of shape professor, and his secretary "90 pounds soaking wet".  Jim appears in Dr. Shutt's doorway, clearly in the middle of a psychotic episode, with a big kitchen knife -- and Jim is a big muscular hulk.

"Apples and tomatoes and water," says Jim, "and I've got to kill you."

Dr. Shutt mentally notes the proximity of the phone versus the proximity of Jim.  Erg.  Forcing himself to stay calm, he replies, "You can't kill me, Jim."

"Why not?" Jim roars.  "I'm big!  I gotta knife!"

"Yes, you do.  But I'm faculty, Jim."

"So??"

With exaggerated patience and kindliness, Dr. Shutt explains, "You have to be a member of the alumni association to kill faculty, Jim.  Are you a member?"

Jim grunts, frustrated.  "No.  I'm not."

"Well, then . . . "  Dr. Shutt spreads his hands hopelessly.

Jim stands there, thinking furiously (and Shutt sits there thinking furiously!), hefting his knife.  At last he says, "OK.  You wait here.  I'm gonna go join, and then I'll be right back!"

"Okay, Jim.  See you in a bit."

And of course the moment Jim left, Shutt was on the phone to campus security to "come drop a net over the guy."

OK, sure, Jim was a crazy person.  But Shutt was used to crazies; it was his job.  It remains that anybody's patterns can be interrupted -- by someone who can get outside his own patterns.  And when you've had your pattern interrupted, in that moment you are very, very confused, because you've lost your blueprint, your script for what's supposed to happen next.  In that moment, the other guy's got you, if he's awake and aware himself.  He now owns the combat field and he will set the terms.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 04, 2011, 10:41:37 am
Quote
I see this as a cultural issue. Some places, if somebody tries to pick a fight with you and you refuse, you can look like a coward.

Oh, true.  Good point.  I need to travel more.

Even then, though, you don't have to play it their way.  If you think your only options are 'go ahead and fight as if you'd taken the bait' or 'decline to fight and look like a coward', then the problem is in your own head and your own limitations.  I most enjoy fight scenes in novels &c where the recipient throws a complete monkey wrench into the instigator's pattern . . .

I like that too. A complete change of subject can boggle people. But if it's people you keep interacting with, you can't expect that to keep working. If they really want to know whether you're a coward, at some point they'll find out.

It can be great for random encounters. "These are not the droids victims you are looking for." And it's fine when it's decisive. But when you're going against the culture it only puts things off -- which can be worth something too.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: terry_freeman on January 04, 2011, 11:53:51 am
Reacting to words with a fight is not the only natural response. It's a response. Odds are that in an armed society, physical conflict would tend to become confined within social norms, at least over the long term; otherwise, there'd be shootings every day, and the population would kill itself off.

Some form of Code Duello would probably arise to mediate such conflicts. The initial response to an insult would probably be some form of verbal signal to "take that back!"; if the other replied appropriately, that would end the conflict. Otherwise, it would escalate, possibly reaching "meet me with your second at such-and-such time and place."

Merely calling a person a homosexual or a whore in an anarchist society is unlikely to be life-threatening. Google "Pink Pistols" - there is no reason that homosexuals cannot arm and defend themselves.

 
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 04, 2011, 02:14:53 pm
I don't see that there's anything "natural" about a society like that. It's just one way things can go. Would a society where people habitually carry guns do it like that? Would they have fistfights where you prove you aren't scared to fight a bigger guy who insults you, and everybody trusts the guy who's losing not to shoot? Everybody trusts the winner not to take it too far? I can imagine it either way, but it seems to me it takes less of a social consensus to take serious concerns to arbitration, unless they turn into gunfights.

"An armed society is a polite society"
Robert Heinlein

Want to see people of all races, sexes, ages and socioeconomic level, get along in near perfect harmony? Hang out at a shooting range. Guns are the great equalizer in more ways than one.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 04, 2011, 02:39:01 pm
A better Heinlein fit might be Beyond This Horizon, remember the incident with the food falling on someone and the exaggerated courtesy, formalized challenge, apology and amends.

I have had some recent discussions about pistols and carrying of same with my brother in Chicago. Our worlds are different. There they are finally being allowed to own a side arm with only a $200 a year fee, and yearly qualification. For that they can carry in their house only. Here in rural Washington State, I carry when it suits me.

Since he has not carried in public my brother has no idea what it is like, imagines it's the old west every day. Surely anyone with a deadly weapon must be a swaggering lout because hey, he's got a gun. Explain that to a black belt who is a deadly weapon. Mellow fellows in the vast majority, armed folks too.

Nope, it's scary, the world is kindling and you have the only fire extinguisher in the room. What if, hope not, but what if, can I, would I, should I and then what?  Oh crap this is hard work, why bother?

No, RAH had it right once again. to function an armed society has to be a polite one and that includes built in relief valves like the apology sequence in the novel or the words are just words philosophy in the comic.

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 04, 2011, 03:12:35 pm
To me, a "fighting words" sort of society is simply... natural. Since one places a man's life in danger by, say, accusing him of being homosexual, doing so is placing him  under an obligation to react.

O H   M Y   GOD!   I don't know why I didn't see it before! It all adds up. Isn't it obvious what Quadibloc's fear of being called a homosexual, his tough-guy facade and his obvious misogyny, imply?

Next thing you know, we'll find out he's an aboriginal Australian...

BTW, I place you under no obligation to react.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: ZeissIkon on January 04, 2011, 03:56:50 pm
If society ever evolved to the point where it was so advanced that people could just laugh off such accusations in safety - that one incident of not reacting to an accusation of being gay with anger wouldn't lead to a whispering campaign and ultimate ostracism - things might be different. But as long as there is reason to doubt that this could never happen, people must be free to defend themselves as may be necessary.

Well, two sides to this, I think.

First, it looks like you're telling me that I ought to sneak-shoot anyone who, say, calls me a pedophile (calling someone gay, even in North Carolina, just doesn't seem that threatening -- maybe I live a sheltered life), and that I ought to be able to justify such an action as self-defense.  You go first; I'm pretty sure this is a bad idea and want to see how you make out.

Second, however, you seem to be implying that in a society sane enough to operate under AnCap, it'll still be a mortal insult to use words like "pederast" or "motherfucker" or "cocksucker".  I think this is highly unlikely; even in our (pretty ill) American society of the early 21st century, none of those words are seen as justification for homicide or as mortal threats (or even as credible accusations, absent some level of evidence even if not admissible in court), outside certain fairly sharply defined subcultures (and not necessarily the ones you might think -- I've heard from many sources that convicted child molesters have a very hard time in the general population of most state and Federal prisons, a population that's mostly composed of drug- and gang-related felons).  As a matter of fact, a couple of those words figured prominently in a very well known comedy monolog some thirty years ago (which, in violation of its own internal prophecy, has been seen/heard on TV at least a couple times).

P.S. I see one of those words got, um, "translated" by the board software, but anyone who ever watched the 21st century version of Battlestar Galactica will recognize the Bowdlerized form...
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 04, 2011, 04:32:10 pm
Words are still just words.

In Glory Road, more RAH, Star says something like "an insult is like a drink, it only effects if accepted". 

Starting a rumor truly detrimental to a person's well being, say that he is a card cheat like Morris, comes close to fraud. It could hurt his ability to function. Accusing him of being one of that sort, pick one, is neither here nor there. Even today it's no big deal except among bigots.

Call me most anything but not late for dinner.

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: terry_freeman on January 04, 2011, 04:38:00 pm
I may have told this story before. A friend, whom I will call John, sort of cut somebody off in traffic. The other guy's response was not merely to hit the horn and flip a one-fingered salute, but to go into full road-rage berserker mode. John pulled off at a ramp to escape the road rage guy, but was then stuck at a traffic signal. Mr RR, as we shall call him, jumps out with a tire iron and runs toward John's car. John slips out the passenger side door, runs around to the trunk, unlocks the trunk, retrieves and loads his gun, and continues running around the car to escape Mr. RR and his tire-iron.

Mr RR hits John with the tire-iron, badly enough that it might be broken. John continues to elude Mr RR, trying to resolve the situation without shooting Mr. RR.

The police finally arrive, the usual "Put down your weapons, hands above the head, etc."

The police hears the story, and asks John one question: "Why didn't you shoot him?"

John answers, "It would have ruined my day."

If John could save his life without killing another, that was his strong preference; taking a severe blow and not shooting showed admirable restraint on his part.

This (mostly) true tale runs totally counter to the usual bedwetting statist theory, which is that people with guns would be subject to sudden fits, and would shoot people in a wild moment of road rage.

I say mostly true because John was relating his story to a California newsman, and California law required John ( who did not have a CCW permit at that time ) to have his weapon unloaded and locked in his trunk - or openly visible if inside the passenger compartment. The latter option is rarely practiced, as it has a tendency to freak out police officers. The most likely scenario is that John had a loaded gun concealed, under the seat or in the glovebox, but amended the story to avoid legal complications.

I was once advised - by a police officer - to put my gun under a newspaper, and flip the newspaper away when pulled over, if one wished to appear to comply with the "openly visible" law. Of course, keep one's hands away from the gun; to do otherwise might be taken as evidence of suicidal tendencies.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 04, 2011, 05:14:53 pm
I have heard it said people with carry permits have a lower incidence of violent crime than school teachers or the clergy. Now then a school teacher nun with a yardstick...

To paraphrase an ex Prez, it depends on what your definition of gun is. Note, in Chicago, LA, DC, NYC a good old 1911 sitting on a table is clearly an offensive weapon, as in who are you going to kill with that. At least in the first city I have heard it said as such. In many places out in America it is a defensive weapon. Among gun people it's just there, about as remarkable as any other long range power drill. It depends on you more than on the 2 pounds of steel just sitting there.

I wonder, a question for you writer and  management types, does Libby the newly graduated adult carry now and did she before?
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 04, 2011, 07:11:53 pm
I wonder, a question for you writer and  management types, does Libby the newly graduated adult carry now and did she before?

In my stories, yes, both before and after. though most likely a knife before. Her first carry gun will probably be a gift from a family member.

Now the story can be told. I have told the artists, "More Guns, Less Gravity!" Let's see if it takes.  :)
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2011, 08:41:55 pm
On another thread I was informed that Ceries escape velocity was near Mach 2.


So most firearms would fire sub orbital projectiles?

On Earth most rifle bullets are dangerous for a mile or more only a few are a threat over two miles.


On Ceries the ranges of ordinairy firearms would be extraordinary , a careless shot might skim along at dangerous height completely over the horizon.

If you had a very powerfull rifle I wonder if you could put a bullet into orbit at a six foot altitude? That thing could be dangerous for a month.

On tiny asteroids of course a stray bullet would simply escape and become another asteroid itself , no more of a threat than any other simularly sized asteroid, but on small airless worlds one might have to exercise extra care insureing that your bullets were appropriately powerfulland that backstops were behind your target. 
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 04, 2011, 09:09:12 pm
Any small fast moving object would be a threat in space, lead or nickel iron. It seems like the small diameter means the surface curves away fast. Bullets move in a straight line so it would leave the immediate surface fast. Now does it come back down? Wikipedia puts the escape velocity at .51 KPS, call it 1700 FPS. So most pistols no and most rifles yes
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Plane on January 04, 2011, 09:14:29 pm
Any small fast moving object would be a threat in space, lead or nickel iron. It seems like the small diameter means the surface curves away fast. Bullets move in a straight line so it would leave the immediate surface fast. Now does it come back down? Wikipedia puts the escape velocity at .51 KPS, call it 1700 FPS. So most pistols no and most rifles yes


Of course the worst coincidince would be haveing a firearm that happened to push a projectile at exactly the speed of a low orbit.
You would be aiming at yourself no matter what direction you fired in .
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 04, 2011, 09:34:24 pm

Of course the worst coincidince would be haveing a firearm that happened to push a projectile at exactly the speed of a low orbit.
You would be aiming at yourself no matter what direction you fired in .

Somebody wrote a short story on that topic a long time ago. I've forgotten whether it was Frank Herbert, Arthur C Clarke, or someone else. I believe it was set on Luna, and as I remember it he had US and USSR military space stations having an armed dispute that resulted in a bunch of machine gun bullets in similarly low orbit. They quickly stopped fighting and concentrated on repairing the damages to structures etc that happened predictably every X hours.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: quadibloc on January 05, 2011, 12:18:32 am
It looks like the less-than-gentlemanly individual at the bar is spoiling for a fight, which seems to explain how the foursome has obtained the sobriquet of "Miners' Canaries". Apparently they're not the only people on Ceres who haven't quite internalized the ZAP yet.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: terry_freeman on January 05, 2011, 01:51:34 am

"An armed society is a polite society"
Robert Heinlein

Want to see people of all races, sexes, ages and socioeconomic level, get along in near perfect harmony? Hang out at a shooting range. Guns are the great equalizer in more ways than one.

Good point, that. I used to hang out at shooting ranges a lot, as one of the leaders of the local Pink Pistols chapter, and nobody ever gave us homosexuals any grief. Never saw anybody giving anybody grief either, unless it was for being a fool when it came to gun safety. Saw whites, hispanics, blacks, asians of all ages and, judging by external appearances, socioeconomic status. If you could pay $6 for the range fee and buy a box of ammo, you could use the range - no great economic hurdle, that. People often would lend weapons, also. In fact, when I competed in three-gun matches, total strangers lent me some fine shotguns and rifles, and provided ammo.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 05, 2011, 10:22:59 am
Good point about ranges guys.

Another place that is as egalitarian as can be is a marina. I've lived on boats most of the last couple years. Like the Belters, they are an independent bunch because they know they are IT. Have a fire or a heart attack even 100 yards off shore and you are all alone. So they prepare, get extra safety gear, backup this and redundant that, get that big boy or girl mind set.

They are dreamers too, they probably won't head for Tahiti but by the Gawds they reserve that option.

People who are prepared to cover there own backsides, own self contained mobile living pods and dream of escaping the confines of the foolishness are hard to control. Good folks and out there we are all equal; it brings out the best in them.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Scott Martin on January 05, 2011, 11:04:42 am
Quadiblock, I notice Chekov's gun behind the bartender in the last panel of today's strip. I wonder when we will enter act 3...

As far as "Them's Fighting Words" if our three "heroes" assault the not-so-polite bar patron, are they the aggressors (ZAP - they have initiated force) or is he the agressor ("Fighting words" - he is clearly inviting them / forcing them to initiate)

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 05, 2011, 11:13:38 am
It looks like the less-than-gentlemanly individual at the bar is spoiling for a fight, which seems to explain how the foursome has obtained the sobriquet of "Miners' Canaries". Apparently they're not the only people on Ceres who haven't quite internalized the ZAP yet.

Silly me, I just realized the Canaries aren't wearing the sort of belt ballast Ed and Carlos have so this a learning experience in progress. On the foursome's side, it is part of an intricate plot more suited to hot head Carlos than mellow Ed. Pick a fight and die, smart, and what did we learn today?

No one has been killed since Harris and co, are we due?

Is there a formal etiquette to challenges beyond the hands off policy?  

Lead on Storytellers, lead on.

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 05, 2011, 12:16:19 pm
Another place that is as egalitarian as can be is a marina. I've lived on boats most of the last couple years. Like the belt, they are an independent bunch because they know they are it...

Wow, the yachties! You are 100% correct. They are probably the closest earthly analogs to Belters. I really should have thought of that. The EFT character, "Doris," is based on a former girlfriend. She was a genetic libertarian and she ran away to sea. She got her ship's master license and ferried yachts across the Atlantic. She and her husband have their own boat and sail several months per year. You nailed it.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: mellyrn on January 05, 2011, 12:29:29 pm
Quote
if our three "heroes" assault the not-so-polite bar patron, are they the aggressors (ZAP - they have initiated force) or is he the agressor ("Fighting words" - he is clearly inviting them / forcing them to initiate)

They are. 

If you size up the situation and coolly decide to strike the first blow, you are obviously the aggressor.

If you lash out in reaction to someone else making figurative faces at you, you are behaving childishly (isn't "getting a grip on oneself" at least part of growing up?)

Yes, it's very naughty and annoying for Carlos to talk like that, but he is facing adults and the onus is still on them, as adults, to choose their behavior.

(As for cultures in which you're a coward if you decline to fight, why doesn't the one who's demanding the fight man up and say it outright?)
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 05, 2011, 02:08:03 pm
Another place that is as egalitarian as can be is a marina. I've lived on boats most of the last couple years. Like the belt, they are an independent bunch because they know they are it...

Wow, the yachties! You are 100% correct. They are probably the closest earthly analogs to Belters.

My experience with cavers was partly like that. You take in everything you need to get out of the cave. Pretty much everything you do is at your own initiative, and you make sure you can back out of each part before you commit yourself. If you get into trouble you can't get yourself out of, everybody who can help will drop what they're doing and assist in the rescue effort. They will get you or your body out of the cave if they at all can. And you will feel like an utter nurd, but at least a live nurd. Unless you're dead.

But there were very very few blacks among the cavers. I think there may have been fewer black cavers than blind cavers. Every black guy I invited to go caving said he was afraid of snakes. They were also very cautious about meeting rural white landowners and asking permission to go onto their land to go caving. There were some extremely rude libertarians, conservationists, etc. There were extreme taboos. Cavers were forbidden to leave anything behind in caves, or take anything out of caves except other cavers' trash. Most of them did everything in small groups and the people who went in together felt responsible for each other. The closest I saw to a real conflict came when one guy was slower than the rest and whined that they weren't waiting for him enough, and then when rappelling he kicked some rocks loose at the top which fell 120 feet among the people waiting at the bottom, and then he whined some more. Nobody was actually hurt except one pulped shoulder and a rope was cut, but they didn't have much sympathy for him and some hard words were exchanged. He complained to the larger organization that they had treated him bad and everybody was embarrassed.

I think the minor squabbling came because people were not completely independent but did feel responsible for each other. One idiot's bad judgement could cause other people a lot of trouble, so they felt they had the right to interfere some. On a cave dive some of my friends found that the team leader inspected everybody's equipment, and when they had some rust on their reserve tank fittings he refused to let them participate. He was the leader, he was responsible for them, and if their equipment wasn't good enough he wouldn't have them.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 05, 2011, 02:09:27 pm
Thanks Sandy.

You shoulda heard the crowd when the municipal marina management started leaning on the tenants about personal stuff involving  their expensive symbols of freedom.  An angry rabble is one thing but.this was an angry Rotary, folks with the mayor's home phone number.

Oops, management said, never mind after all.  

A friend tells a story of her late husband having a long boat side chat with some guy named Frank down in So Cal years ago. Partway through he realized the guy's last name was Sinatra but by then who cared. Afloat, a person's a person no matter how small, the boat.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 05, 2011, 02:35:33 pm
Yep, J. Thomas, Yep.

I used to hike in the Colorado Rockies solo for a week at a time.

One learns to keep Shackleton in mind as opposed to people who expect to be rescued.  Some 20 years ago the locals were still laughing about "The Guys from Winnipeg" who decided to hike the wet west coast of Vancouver Island with one (1) book of matches in someone's pocket. This was 10 years after they got a free helicopter ride to a Victoria hospital. Here I am still laughing at them.

If you are not willing to drag yourself out, don't go up the mountain, in the cave, underwater or off the planet. At least be ready to try. Calling The Service is no replacement for a jack and a spare.

Does On Star creep out anyone else?
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 05, 2011, 03:26:50 pm

If you are not willing to drag yourself out, don't go up the mountain, in the cave, underwater or off the planet. At least be ready to try. Calling The Service is no replacement for a jack and a spare.

But then, if you die under water or on a mountain, the ecology will probably take care of you without much of a burp. Cavers believe that cave ecosystems are delicate, and a hundred pounds of rotting meat might disturb one greatly.

And it's often much easier to assist a conscious person than to carry a corpse. So if somebody has a serious accident, they should do what they can to get out but also wait when appropriate. In theory people were supposed to travel in groups of four, so that if one person got a broken leg or whatever, one other could stay with him while two left to get the word out for a rescue. They could also help a lot in finding the victim later. When you don't know where he is you can spend a whole lot of effort looking.

It's scandalous to get lost and be unable to find your way out. It's bad to slip and break your leg, and if you push your limits and take risks that's more likely, but if you don't push yourself at all how far will you get? There are things that are easy with two legs and hardly possible with one. But also there are crawls that it's very hard to pull somebody on a body board through, or even much of a splint. I remember a story (I wasn't there) where the guy staying with the victim with the broken leg got the legs splinted together and said "Let's just move a little bit and make it easier for them." So they crawled a little way out with a broken leg, and all the way to the entrance to the horrendous crawl, and then in short stages all the way through the long difficult crawl, and by the time the cavers rescuing him got there he had already done the hardest part.

I never needed to be rescued but I came close once. We'd taken a group of newbies on an easy trip, and at the exit there was an easy climb. First I braced for the newbies. They could step on my knee, and hip, and shoulder, and head, and then they were out. I was the last one, and it was something I'd done a dozen times before easily. But I had sprained my big toe, and it just didn't work. I just couldn't do it. I found another way to climb it that didn't need that toe, but there wasn't any guarantee that the other way would show up, until it did. Probably it would be enough for somebody to come back and throw me a loop, but I was glad it didn't come to that.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: KBCraig on January 06, 2011, 01:23:51 am
Does On Star creep out anyone else?

Their ads are a close second behind Brinks Home Security and the other burglar alarmists.

Every time I see one of those commercials where a BG smashes in the door, a siren wails, and a terrified woman rushes to grab the ringing phone only to be assured that "help is on the way", I can't help but think how annoying that alarm and ringing phone would be as I tried to secure my family and myself. And why the hell isn't she lunging for a shotgun instead of the telephone?


Cavers were forbidden to leave anything behind in caves, or take anything out of caves except other cavers' trash.

Curiously enough, "other cavers' trash" is some of the most interesting and valuable stuff to take out, so long as several decades/centuries/millenia have passed.  ;)
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on January 06, 2011, 07:00:29 am
Now the story can be told. I have told the artists, "More Guns, Less Gravity!" Let's see if it takes.  :)

http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=609

uh-oh, I expect you'll be hearing about retention holsters in low G in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..   (j/k)
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 06, 2011, 07:07:49 am

Cavers were forbidden to leave anything behind in caves, or take anything out of caves except other cavers' trash.

Curiously enough, "other cavers' trash" is some of the most interesting and valuable stuff to take out, so long as several decades/centuries/millenia have passed.  ;)

Yes. Once a year we staged a trip to clean up a cave that was known to enough local people that they'd trash it. We'd carry out trash, and if there was lots of graffiti on the walls scrub that off with wire brushes and water. Things written in soot came off easily, spray paint less so. Spray paint on walls that were already covered with millions of tiny pits, even worse. The cleanup leader had a spray bottle of stuff that helped with those; he was evasive about what was in it. He was an anthropologist, and he told us to leave anything with a date earlier than 1950. There was often something with a civil war date that didn't look like the others. Those were probably real because the rebels looked hard for good gunpowder caves, but they might have been forged.

I knew a couple of guys who wanted to leave behind something to show what they'd done. They'd go as far as they could in a difficult cave and then hide a poker chip with their names and NSS numbers scratched on it. They figured it was inert and would not hurt anything, and if anybody didn't like them leaving it there then that someone could take it out. Somebody who didn't know them did find one and raised a giant stink about it. They said it was vandalism and heaped scorn on them in the NSS News.

There's a lot of ancient cave vandalism in the south of france. The limestone weathers to a buff yellow, but if you cut into it it's gray underneath. So people could make pictures by scratching, and within 80 years or so the lines would fade and somebody else could make a new picture. They had examples where there were 5 or 6 layers. The old graffiti was heavy on pictures of big cats and female symbols. I guess. The french researchers tended to interpret anything that had a triangle or a circle or a Y shape as a female symbol. They had a technique of loading a reed with colored powder and blowing it onto the wall, perhaps to outline a hand. Or they'd dip a hand in pigment and slap it against the wall. Lots of the hand outlines had fingers missing. The french had complex explanations about it all as shamanistic fertility symbols and hunting rituals etc. My explanation was simpler: They were teenage boys, exploring caves with their markers and spraypaint. They didn't have swastikas and upside down crosses because those hadn't been invented yet.

Sorry to be so longwinded. I guess my central point is that we had complex rules of behavior that evolved out of shared values. Anybody who'd been in a virgin cave hated to see caves get trashed. And that led to social norms that might seem peculiar or extreme to people who hadn't been there. There was no enforcement possible except social disapproval -- I suppose somebody could have been secretly  killed and the body hidden somewhere outside a cave, but i certainly never heard of anything like that. The most people did was to tell other people they should be thrown out of the group, or leave the group. When the guy who dropped rocks on people complained about getting disapproved of, everybody got embarrassed and finally they appointed a committee to look into it and nothing happened. He left. When the guys left poker chips in caves we had an embarrassed meeting and appointed a committee to write a letter, which was not done. When they ran out of patches that could be sewn onto jackets etc and voted that the new patch would be based on a rebel flag, half a dozen members objected strongly enough to leave the group for a few years.

People minded each others' business and the group's business a whole lot, and it never seemed to amount to anything.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Plane on January 06, 2011, 10:58:47 am
Now the story can be told. I have told the artists, "More Guns, Less Gravity!" Let's see if it takes.  :)

http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=609

uh-oh, I expect you'll be hearing about retention holsters in low G in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..   (j/k)

Wouold a small magnet imbedded in the holster work?
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Xavin on January 06, 2011, 11:12:22 am
http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=609

uh-oh, I expect you'll be hearing about retention holsters in low G in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..   (j/k)

Wouold a small magnet imbedded in the holster work?

Depends on the ferromagnetic content of the gun (and the strength of the magnet, and the mass of the weapon).

I've no idea what that would typically be (I'm British. Apparently we can't be trusted with guns).

In theory, however, I don't see why not - presumably an appropriate attachment could be added to the gun if it is insufficiently ferromagnetic itself, and the rest would seem to be a matter of picking a magnet of suitable strength.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on January 06, 2011, 04:33:28 pm

Wouold a small magnet imbedded in the holster work?

How about no holster at all?

http://billllsidlemind.blogspot.com/2010/09/magnetic-holsters.html

also:

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/09/10/handgun-mount-from-old-computer-hard-drive-magnet/

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on January 06, 2011, 04:48:34 pm

Wouold a small magnet imbedded in the holster work?

BTW, a "retention holster". (for those of you outside the gun culture). is a holster for open carry that is specifically designed to keep what Ed did to Carlos from happening.

Very common with the police, and where "open carry" is used here in the states to avoid getting a permission slip from the state to be allowed to carry discreetly.

That it would prevent a sidearm from floating away during low-G acrobats is a bonus ;-)
Title: "Disarming free men is no small thing".
Post by: GeoModder on January 06, 2011, 05:04:41 pm
Ernie on strip 235.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=235

Should our hero Ed in today's strip be worried about an arbitration call from Carlos if nothing more worse happens from this point onwards?
Sure, he steps in before an obvious trigger-happy fellow starts a shoot out.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: mellyrn on January 06, 2011, 06:17:10 pm
Carlos and Ed in arbitration?  What's Carlos going to say for himself?  There's an entire barful of witnesses watching him be an ass -- and who heard Rhonda tell the three "threatening" guys to stand down.


And I am on tenterhooks as to what she meant by "he [Ed] won't work"!
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: quadibloc on January 07, 2011, 12:12:07 am
Well, I'm really puzzled by today's strip. The woman and her four friends may have behaved in a manner different from the norms of Ceres, but it certainly did not appear to me that they were trying to "provoke some sort of incident". It seemed to me that Carlos the Kid did all the provoking; first, the woman responded in an understandable manner, and then the men responded in a reasonable manner to a perceived threat.

Of course, I may be ignoring some obvious fact, like "don't walk into a bar if you don't like meeting people who have had a few too many".

EDIT: Of course, that stuff about "Plan B" did mean they were up to something. It's just that provoking an incident didn't seem to be any part of it. Seducing and then hiring someone like Ed, maybe.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 07, 2011, 04:45:21 am
Well, I'm really puzzled by today's strip. The woman and her four friends may have behaved in a manner different from the norms of Ceres, but it certainly did not appear to me that they were trying to "provoke some sort of incident". It seemed to me that Carlos the Kid did all the provoking; first, the woman responded in an understandable manner, and then the men responded in a reasonable manner to a perceived threat.

Not enough information.

The four had a plan. If it's a paramilitary plan for some political purpose, it would be hard to guess. So let's imagine they are looking for money.

How  much do they know about the Belt? Let's suppose they have superb fighting skills. Maybe the woman picks up a man in the bar, and takes him somewhere that the four of them can mug him? Maybe she does pick a fight, and her friends intervene, and they expect they can get a drunk to back down and pay them, or they can persuade a court to award them damages?

But they don't carry visible weapons. Maybe they have concealed weapons? Maybe they're recently from UW where civilians aren't allowed weapons, and they're civilians now?

Presumably they don't know what to expect in the Belt and they're trying to play a game without knowing the house rules. Since we don't know which things they don't know, it's hard to be sure what their plan is.

Similarly Carlos is recently from UW and he's hazy on the culture too. Presumably he's practiced shooting his gun and he's itching for somebody to shoot at, and he thinks her friends have given him his chance. If it wasn't them, at some point he'd find some random person in a bar who did something that offended him....

I expect we will see that it isn't a society where people have gunfights in bars, except for recent immigrants. They could if they wanted to, but they don't want to. If you get into a situation in front of a bunch of witnesses, why not take it to arbitration? Everybody who cares to can say what they saw and who they thought was wrong. The time to shoot somebody is when you think the other guy is about to shoot you, and what excuse does he have to do that in front of a room full of witnesses? Whoever makes the first threat looks bad.

But some immigrants will expect it to be like the old Wild West on TV.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: GeoModder on January 07, 2011, 09:18:33 am
Carlos and Ed in arbitration?  What's Carlos going to say for himself?  There's an entire barful of witnesses watching him be an ass -- and who heard Rhonda tell the three "threatening" guys to stand down.

That he's a free man who's gun was taken away? It's not between Carlos and the 'canaries', it's between Ed and Carlos.
Admittedly, he behaved like an ass. And likely if an arbitration was called and held he'd lose. But it might not stop Carlos from calling one.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: terry_freeman on January 07, 2011, 10:00:55 am
Carlos' gun was taken away under circumstances where a roomful of witnesses probably came to the conclusion that he was about to shoot somebody, with insufficient grounds for the use of deadly force.

Maybe Carlos says "I'll take you to court!"

What happens? The bartender says something like "Don't be a fool, Carlos. Here are 20 witnesses. You made threats and reached for your holster, Ed got there first and prevented you from a world of trouble. The smart thing to do is to pull yourself together and let bygones be bygones. Ed did you a favor."

If Carlos continues to bluster, several witnesses step up. That's how social norms work. If the bartender can't handle stuff like this, he needs to look for another line of business.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 07, 2011, 11:25:24 am
Ethlically, Ed did some good by doing some wrong. It's the stealltng bread for starvng chlld quandry. Now what wins, the letter or the iintent of the law/custom? Provided Carlos is mature enough to judge that is.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 07, 2011, 01:01:06 pm
That he's a free man who's gun was taken away? It's not between Carlos and the 'canaries', it's between Ed and Carlos.

Self-defense includes defense of another. The evidence strongly suggested Carlos was threatening to shoot unarmed men. By temporarily disarming Carlos, Ed removed the threat to the three men.

Admittedly, he behaved like an ass. And likely if an arbitration was called and held he'd lose. But it might not stop Carlos from calling one.

No, and, as I have written on this Forum, one can sue the Bishop of Boston for Bastardy… but one is most unlikely to prevail. Ed would undoubtedly win on his counter claim for bringing a frivolous suit.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 07, 2011, 02:59:52 pm
Thanks for the weekend cliff hanger in this why done it. .

About the Kid's holster, if it had a retention strap he must have unsnapped it.

If he did, it could then be one more definete step in the escalation proces.  In westerns anyway, working  cowboys wanted to keep ther guns from falling out, the town gun slingers had less secure speed holsters.  So which one is Carlos, working stiff or wanna be gun slinger? Or both.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 07, 2011, 03:24:08 pm
Is Rhonda protecting Ed by subduing Carlos?
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on January 07, 2011, 03:57:11 pm
Self-defense includes defense of another. The evidence strongly suggested Carlos was threatening to shoot unarmed men. By temporarily disarming Carlos, Ed removed the threat to the three men.

I know it's your strip, but I'd disagree.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Carlos is an @$$hole.

That being said, Carlos said: "I think you are threatening me. Maybe I will have to put you all down."

Which I will translate: "I fear for my life, if you come any closer, I will defend myself with my sidearm."

I would argue Carlos was not saying: "Hello. My Name Is Inigo Montoya. You Killed My Father. Prepare to Die."

I'm quite sure that three grown men could have overpowered Carlos. Warning unarmed people to not come any closer seems to be an acceptable action.  Do the canaries have to close enough to disarm Carlos before he can warn them off? Can he only shoot people armed like he was in self-defense?

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: mellyrn on January 07, 2011, 05:34:20 pm
Quote
I would argue Carlos was not saying: "Hello. My Name Is Inigo Montoya. You Killed My Father. Prepare to Die."

I argue that that's exactly what he was saying.  If he really felt endangered, he would not have spoken with such a come-and-get-me sneer -- check his snide little grin as he says, "Oh, three heroes."  And "Maybe I will have to put you all down" isn't exactly "Hold it right there, don't come any closer!"

Do you honestly think Ed would have intervened as he did if he thought Carlos was truly alarmed -- or if he thought Carlos really was at risk?

Carlos is giving them a come-on.  And I think if this were not explicitly an anarchic comic, no one would have missed that. 
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 07, 2011, 05:58:23 pm
I don't think anyone disagrees that Carlos is an @$$hole.

That being said, Carlos said: "I think you are threatening me. Maybe I will have to put you all down."

Which I will translate: "I fear for my life, if you come any closer, I will defend myself with my sidearm."

Reasonable minds may differ. Of course, it is difficult in this medium to nuance speech, but I'm sure you will agree that different verbal emphasis would yield a different interpretation. For those old enough, I based the character on "Cimarron" in John Wayne's "The Cowboys," my all-time favorite John Wayne movie and probably in my top 10 of all films. Check it out.

I'm quite sure that three grown men could have overpowered Carlos.

Even if possible, to what end? So they could beat him up? However, the likelihood of doing that before he shot one of them or an innocent bystander approximates zero. My guess is you have never taken a combat firearms course. Taking a gun away from a person determined to shoot you is extremely difficult.

Can he only shoot people armed like he was in self-defense?

Nope, but without something more, he would be hard pressed to show he was acting in self-defense.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 07, 2011, 07:00:34 pm
Carlos insults Rhonda
Ed stops her slap
She complains, he explains, the 3 get up
She says Ed won't work
Carlos threatens others
Ed takes his gun
Carlos threatens Ed
Mr macho Carlos gets beat up by a girl 
Carlos has it coming from someone but why her?

I think she likes/respects Ed but was she keeping him from having to use deadly force? If so, why?
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 07, 2011, 07:02:04 pm
I'm quite sure that three grown men could have overpowered Carlos.

Even if possible, to what end? So they could beat him up?

If they could overpower him, then they could twist his head off if they chose to. (Maybe it wouldn't come off, but that wouldn't matter much to him at that point.) So they could perhaps be considered a credible threat. He didn't have to know exactly what their motives were, if he could legitimately consider himself threatened.

Quote
However, the likelihood of doing that before he shot one of them or an innocent bystander approximates zero. My guess is you have never taken a combat firearms course. Taking a gun away from a person determined to shoot you is extremely difficult.

On the other hand taking a gun away from somebody who is focused on intimidating you is often much easier though still risky. Was Carlos determined to shoot or was he in intimidation mode? If it's you facing that, and you aren't sure then you're betting your life that you're right. On the other hand, if he's determined to shoot you regardless you might not have much to lose....

Bet your life that the guy with the gun is an idiot? I feel lucky I've never been in that situation outside of dreams. In theory I'd feel more confident trying it if he was actually pointing a gun at me. Because if he's already pointed it at me for 3 seconds and he hasn't shot me yet, then probably he hasn't taken a combat firearms course and the odds are bigger that he doesn't know what he's doing.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 07, 2011, 08:55:44 pm
You are way over-thinking this. Try focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome. Ed's actions are the only issue of any importance in this scene.

I'm quite sure that three grown men could have overpowered Carlos.

Even if possible, to what end? So they could beat him up?

If they could overpower him, then they could twist his head off if they chose to. (Maybe it wouldn't come off, but that wouldn't matter much to him at that point.) So they could perhaps be considered a credible threat. He didn't have to know exactly what their motives were, if he could legitimately consider himself threatened.

Quote
However, the likelihood of doing that before he shot one of them or an innocent bystander approximates zero. My guess is you have never taken a combat firearms course. Taking a gun away from a person determined to shoot you is extremely difficult.

On the other hand taking a gun away from somebody who is focused on intimidating you is often much easier though still risky. Was Carlos determined to shoot or was he in intimidation mode? If it's you facing that, and you aren't sure then you're betting your life that you're right. On the other hand, if he's determined to shoot you regardless you might not have much to lose....

Bet your life that the guy with the gun is an idiot? I feel lucky I've never been in that situation outside of dreams. In theory I'd feel more confident trying it if he was actually pointing a gun at me. Because if he's already pointed it at me for 3 seconds and he hasn't shot me yet, then probably he hasn't taken a combat firearms course and the odds are bigger that he doesn't know what he's doing.

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: GeoModder on January 08, 2011, 03:00:13 am
Self-defense includes defense of another. The evidence strongly suggested Carlos was threatening to shoot unarmed men. By temporarily disarming Carlos, Ed removed the threat to the three men.

No, and, as I have written on this Forum, one can sue the Bishop of Boston for Bastardy… but one is most unlikely to prevail. Ed would undoubtedly win on his counter claim for bringing a frivolous suit.

Quandary solved as far as I'm concerned. :)
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 08, 2011, 06:49:39 am
You are way over-thinking this. Try focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome. Ed's actions are the only issue of any importance in this scene.

OK, I'll try again. Apollo-Soyuz pointed out that he could legitimately feel threatened, because three big competent men could kill him even though he has a gun, particularly if they got close enough first. You ask what reasonable intention they could have, which does not affect that point -- if it's true they're about to do that then Carlos might never find out what was going on in their minds to make them want to. If they have some stupid plan that will only get them in trouble -- like his -- it isn't his responsibility to figure it out ahead of time.

But he doesn't act like he's afraid of that. He acts like they have played into his hands and he can make a big show before he kills them. In my opinion.

Ed notices Carlos's intentions and stops it. And the big point I get from this is that lots of people imagine that any AnCap society will be like they think the Old Wild West was, where they get to kill anybody they think  has threatened them. Probably lots of Belter newbies will come in thinking that. (There could be AnCap societies like that, if it turns out that societies like that can persist.)

And since there is no official indoctrination unit that collects newbies and trains them in how to be Belters and doesn't let them out until they know the rules, it's up to whoever is on hand to teach them better. If nobody stops newbies from behaving that way, then with sufficient newbies the Belt will indeed become that kind of society. Ed is taking his turn.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: SandySandfort on January 08, 2011, 07:21:07 am
You are way over-thinking this. Try focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome. Ed's actions are the only issue of any importance in this scene.

OK, I'll try again. Apollo-Soyuz pointed out that he could legitimately feel threatened...

As I have already said, reasonable minds may differ and I do not agree with that analysis. At any rate, you are building castles in the air again with the rest of your post, below.

You are still not focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome. The intent and threat the three guys posed is essentially irrelevant. What Carlos thought and what threat he posed is also largely irrelevant.

For whatever reason, a serious situation was getting worse. With that in mind, analyze Ed's actions, infer his motives and examine the results. If you do that correctly, the scales shall fall from your eyes.

Anybody else care to take a whack at it?

... because three big competent men could kill him even though he has a gun, particularly if they got close enough first. You ask what reasonable intention they could have, which does not affect that point -- if it's true they're about to do that then Carlos might never find out what was going on in their minds to make them want to. If they have some stupid plan that will only get them in trouble -- like his -- it isn't his responsibility to figure it out ahead of time.

But he doesn't act like he's afraid of that. He acts like they have played into his hands and he can make a big show before he kills them. In my opinion.

Ed notices Carlos's intentions and stops it. And the big point I get from this is that lots of people imagine that any AnCap society will be like they think the Old Wild West was, where they get to kill anybody they think  has threatened them. Probably lots of Belter newbies will come in thinking that. (There could be AnCap societies like that, if it turns out that societies like that can persist.)

And since there is no official indoctrination unit that collects newbies and trains them in how to be Belters and doesn't let them out until they know the rules, it's up to whoever is on hand to teach them better. If nobody stops newbies from behaving that way, then with sufficient newbies the Belt will indeed become that kind of society. Ed is taking his turn.

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 08, 2011, 07:28:51 am
You are way over-thinking this. Try focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome. Ed's actions are the only issue of any importance in this scene.

OK, I'll try again. Apollo-Soyuz pointed out that he could legitimately feel threatened...

You are still not focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome.

OK, I'll try again.

Ed notices Carlos's intentions and stops it. And the big point I get from this is that lots of people imagine that any AnCap society will be like they think the Old Wild West was, where they get to kill anybody they think  has threatened them. Probably lots of Belter newbies will come in thinking that. (There could be AnCap societies like that, if it turns out that societies like that can persist.)

And since there is no official indoctrination unit that collects newbies and trains them in how to be Belters and doesn't let them out until they know the rules, it's up to whoever is on hand to teach them better. If nobody stops newbies from behaving that way, then with sufficient newbies the Belt will indeed become that kind of society. Ed is taking his turn.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: terry_freeman on January 08, 2011, 07:42:53 am
You are way over-thinking this. Try focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome. Ed's actions are the only issue of any importance in this scene.

OK, I'll try again. Apollo-Soyuz pointed out that he could legitimately feel threatened...

You are still not focusing on what Ed did, why he did it and the outcome.

OK, I'll try again.

Ed notices Carlos's intentions and stops it. And the big point I get from this is that lots of people imagine that any AnCap society will be like they think the Old Wild West was, where they get to kill anybody they think  has threatened them. Probably lots of Belter newbies will come in thinking that. (There could be AnCap societies like that, if it turns out that societies like that can persist.)

And since there is no official indoctrination unit that collects newbies and trains them in how to be Belters and doesn't let them out until they know the rules, it's up to whoever is on hand to teach them better. If nobody stops newbies from behaving that way, then with sufficient newbies the Belt will indeed become that kind of society. Ed is taking his turn.


That seems to make sense. Ed defused what was becoming a dangerous situation, with a minimum of force. He lifted the gun, he didn't shoot Carlos. He stopped Rhonda's arm, he didn't backhand her into the wall.

Odds are that this won't rise to the level of arbitration; it's normally allowable friction. Could Carlos and Rhonda "make a federal case" by insisting on a 100% literal reading of the non-agression principle? Yes, but they'd lose in the court of social opinion. Unless they have an OCD-ish need for legal certainty, they'll let it slide.


Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: GlennWatson on January 08, 2011, 08:25:38 am
Quote
Carlos said: "I think you are threatening me. Maybe I will have to put you all down."

When he said this I felt Carlos was being disingenuous.  He never felt threatened at all.  He enjoyed the fact that three unarmed newbies were trying to threaten him.  His reaction to having his gun taken by Carlos and then the bartender shows he is something of a dilettante in respect to the spirit of AnCap.  His whining that he left Earth to avoid having his gun taken showed his immaturity and lack of real understanding of the AnCap way.  I predict this will be explained to him by Carlos. 
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on January 08, 2011, 08:58:30 pm
Of course, it is difficult in this medium to nuance speech, but I'm sure you will agree that different verbal emphasis would yield a different interpretation.

Fair enough


Quote from: SandySandfort
My guess is you have never taken a combat firearms course. Taking a gun away from a person determined to shoot you is extremely difficult.

Haven't taken a combat course yet. Nor seen the elephant. I do know an opponent can close 10 feet of distance in an amazingly short time.

And I have experienced adrenalin and alcohol together before.  Time slows down, tunnel vision, etc.

Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: spudit on January 09, 2011, 12:39:31 pm
Carlos was harmless even with a gun.

Ed helped but remember Rhonda was there right beside him ignored as some bimbo. She took Carlos down fast and she did it by grabbing his arms. It was a damned fine disarming move. I bet it would have happened the second he tried to draw. Older and wiser Ed emptied his holster first and dropped the level of conflict to fistfight and on that level it stayed.

Unless you are also trained, let a martial artist get within arms reach and you are meat. Disarming is a big part of their training, just as combat shooting is big on not letting them get that close.

Carlos is juat comic relief. a prop for Ed to use. Now, why did he have to show us what?
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: J Thomas on January 10, 2011, 09:28:13 am
It was amusing hearing "emergent phenomenon in all cultures" in a bar right after a bar fight has been avoided.

I get the impression I'd fit right in.
Title: Re: Coventry
Post by: macsnafu on January 10, 2011, 02:43:17 pm
The point seems to be that Ed didn't respond the way Rhonda and the others wanted or expected him to respond.  I agree that Carlos was more a secondary character used for comparison/contrast.  Carlos most likely reacted the way Rhonda and company wanted Ed to act.  They are interested in Ed, not Carlos. Ed defused the situation all the way around, not just the fight between Carlos and the Canaries.

Why they are interested in Ed remains to be seen.