h a l f b a k e r yIdea vs. Ego
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
A crazed but highly skilled killer - ex-SEAL, maybe? - stalks a
weekend-long gun show, eliminating stereotypically
hidebound gun enthusiasts in creative and unexpected ways,
while they try unsuccessfully to hunt him (her?) down with
traditional firearms. Irony abounds.
Badman and Badman
http://www.badmans.co.uk/index.shtml
[not_morrison_rm, Mar 18 2013]
Rampage (2009)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1337057
Could be rewritten per this idea. Pitch it to Uwe Boll. [CraigD, Mar 18 2013]
Ninja III: The Domination (1984)
http://www.youtube....watch?v=X_rKng3VB_8
Or re-background the first 10 minutes of this in a gunshow venue (OANCKAN) [CraigD, Mar 18 2013]
Will Death be wearing this t-shirt?
http://www.zazzle.c...-235637005096015298
[theleopard, Mar 20 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Hopefully not baked anytime soon. |
|
| |
Have you been to a gun show? A large, well-lit room,
typically an auditorium, with a general lack of what
professional soldiers consider good cover, filled with
literally thousands of firearms and several hundred people
who know how to use them. Even taking into account the
time required to remove trigger locks and retrieve
ammunition from the safes, it would be a very short
film. |
|
| |
I know what you're getting at here, but even a SEAL would
be hard-pressed to get very far in this scenario. These days
there are enough armed guards and police stationed just at
the entrance to the restrooms to handle the job before any
of us gun nuts could even get our hoglegs loaded. |
|
| |
//A large, well-lit room, typically an auditorium// |
|
| |
Yes, but you're talking about a real-world gun
show. This is Hollywood. By the same token -
snakes seldom make it onto planes; nuclear
bombs don't usually have big red digital
countdown displays; and holy grails seldom emit
light-shows capable of turning Nazis to dust. |
|
| |
Picture the scene - it's a gun show that's been
organized on a large cruise ship to take advantage
of special regulations which apply only in
international waters. The cruise has been
organized by the CIA specifically to lure the
world's criminals into one location so that the ship
can be sunk by means of a small nuclear warhead
hidden in a sealed compartment. The ship is
captained by a retired naval admiral who has been
diagnosed with terminal phygostatic paralogia,
and wants to take these guys down with him. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, the ne'er-do-wells hijack the ship
(something which the CIA has, tragically, failed to
foresee as a possibility) and is sailing it towards
California. Fortunately, though, Bruce Willis has
stowed away in the engine room, and is in radio
contact with a CHiPs officer. Unfortunately,
though, Willis has no weapons other than a spoon,
and has forgotten his shoes. |
|
| |
Single handedly, he must take out the bad guys
one by one. He does this by a combination of
deft spoon usage, improvised explosives and by
turning the baddies against eachother by means of
subterfuge. A climax of the film happens when
the Japanese contingent on board decide to
celebrate with a banquet of sea urchins, which are
scattered across the floor of the ship's dining area,
to the annoyance of a barefoot Willis. |
|
| |
In the nick of time, he seizes control of the ship
and points the autopilot towards the island of one
of the drug barons on the ship. He does this just
before the ship reaches California, where its
slowing down to below 12 knots would trigger the
nuclear warhead. |
|
| |
At the last moment before the ship hits the
island, he is caught and his hands are handcuffed.
With minutes to go before the ship stops and the
bomb goes off, he contorts himself, using a sea-
urchin spine sticking out of his heel to pick the
lock on the handcuffs. In one bound he is free,
diving overboard and swimming to safety
moments before the bomb goes off, only to be
picked up by his CHiPs buddy on a jet ski. |
|
| |
When I read this, maybe still confused by the rear admirials terminal phlogistic paraphilia, I thought the cruise ship had been hijacked by a different set of baddies. Bruce notwithstanding that would make for a fun movie: a ship full of baddies realizing they have not only been tricked by the CIA (baddies) but have been hijacked by a different set of baddies. Sort of a Lock Stock and 2 smoking barrels scenario. |
|
| |
Way too complicated for a movie either intended to
sell to a US audience or starring Bruce Willis. One
lot of good guys, one lot of bad guys, many guns. |
|
| |
//A large, well-lit room, typically an auditorium,
with a general lack of what professional soldiers
consider good cover, filled with literally thousands
of firearms and several hundred people who know
how to use them. Even taking into account the
time required to remove trigger locks and retrieve
ammunition from the safes, it would be a very
short film.// |
|
| |
Still quite a short film, though. |
|
| |
//Way too complicated for a movie … intended
to sell to a US audience// |
|
| |
Yes, not at all like those highbrow British films.
“Carry On Highjacking” anyone? |
|
| |
//“Carry On Highjacking” anyone?// Sp. "hijacking" |
|
| |
Actually, I believe the British spelling is “hyjacke”. |
|
| |
//filled with literally thousands of firearms and
several hundred people who know how to use them// |
|
| |
Pah. They'd start splattering bullets like a cow pissing on a
flat rock and kill more of their friends than bad guys. Kind
of like they do now. |
|
| |
// I believe the British spelling is “hyjacke”.// It
actually comes from Tamil word "hijag" (or "hizab"),
which in turn comes from "hitza" (loosely, "to steal")
and "abo", meaning a house. These, of course, are
transliterations from the Tamil alphabet, so whether
it's "hi" or "hy" is a bit moot. However, it's not "high"
- that spelling is based on the erroneous assumption
that the word relates to aircraft. |
|
| |
//holy grails seldom emit light-shows capable of turning Nazis to dust//
Mine does. Yours must be malfunctioning. Upgrade the driver*.
* that's a software upgrade not a pay rise for the chauffeur! |
|
| |
// They'd start splattering bullets like a cow pissing on a
flat rock // |
|
| |
There's a certain degree of truth to that statement. Not all
gun nuts value accuracy and discretion as much as I do, but
most are more responsible than the stereotype allows. |
|
| |
Apologies. I don't really like other gun people, but I feel
the need to defend so-called 'gun culture' from those who
view it unrealistically. |
|
| |
//It actually comes from Tamil word "hijag" (or
"hizab")// |
|
| |
Interestingly, I've been doing some etymological
research myself, and I discovered that “Maxwell”
actually comes from the Arabic root word “kaswa”,
meaning “marketplace”, and “m'kaswal” literally
translates to “one from the marketplace”, but has a
meaning closer to “monger” or “purveyor”. |
|
| |
And “Buchanan” of course comes from the Punjabi
words “bookah”, meaning “crops”, and “naan”,
which as we all know is a type of staple bread but is
more broadly used as a term for any type of
sustenance. So “bookah-naan” (literally, “crop-food”)
refers to the organic
matter mixed into the soil for the nourishment of
the plants. |
|
| |
If this idea was literally about Death stalking a gun fair, that would be more cinematic. |
|
| |
On the etymology front, discovered some cabinet makers around the corner called "Badman and Badman". I'm not sure if either of them have guns. |
|
| |
//I've been doing some etymological research
myself...// So you're saying I'm a purveyor of buns?
Well... |
|
| |
There is a potential market for a Death Stalks The... franchise. Either using the lone assassin approach, or perhaps something closer to Final Destination-cum-disaster movie, with (the personification of?) Death sweeping zigzaggely through a convention hall, casually and creatively offing people like he's playing Doom with iddqd. Anyway, once you've motion-captured the various scenes if convention carnage, this framework can be skinned as gun show, comic con, furry knees up, MIPIM or whatever gathering of detestable human garbage people will pay most and most often to see charnelised. |
|
| |
[Alter] While I agree with you in the main, anyone
who claims they need a fully automatic weapon for
hunting (which some do) strike me as being more of
the spray and pray variety. |
|
| |
Anybody who claims to 'need' anything more than a semi-
auto for hunting, target shooting, or anything other than
legitimate combat operations is a full-blown frothing idiot. |
|
| |
Given the resources, would I obtain the necessary permits
and purchase a fully automatic firearm? Yes, as a collector
and admirer of historical pieces (it's a very humble
collection), I acknowledge the desire to have a WWII-era
M2 in my library. But I don't _need_ an automatic weapon,
and neither does anyone else who is not a soldier* or a
cop. The only reason I hunt with an AR is that I enjoy
building and tinkering with them (and used to compete
with them) and I refuse to own a gun (aside from an
historical piece) that I do not have a use for. I could just
as ably hunt with a single-shot Savage or a Model 70
(R.I.P.). |
|
| |
Anyway, it's pretty much moot now. |
|
| |
Never said you said anything, [Kwest]. [MechE] said: |
|
| |
// anyone who claims they need a fully automatic
weapon for hunting (which some do) // etc. |
|
| |
But seriously, dude, an AK? All this time I had you pegged
for a lover of finely-crafted firearms, and now, sir, you
disappoint me. |
|
| |
[calum], were you aware iddqd is a veritable internet
meme? I was quite pleased with myself when I
recognised such an obscure reference, but Googled
it just to double check and found they have a t-shirt
of it and everything. |
|
| |
Ha! No, I didn't know it was a meme, though now that you mention it it seems like an inevitability that it would be one. |
|
| |
I can't name a more durable, reliable, or low-maintanance
weapon than the AK-47 and you know it. Off the top of my
head, I can name the FN-FAL, the L85, and the Galil as
more versatile, and without even getting into what I
consider 'well-crafted' I can name dozens of combat
weapons that are more accurate than the stamped-tin
Russian rockchucker, starting with the Uzi. Sure, you can
light your AK on fire and piss on it to put it out, take a
giant dump in the receiver, toss in a few iron filings for
good measure, run it through a dishwasher with rock salt
for detergent, and it will still fire flawlessly before the
water's drained out, but as a gun it is a definitive failure
due to its consistent and unfailing refusal to put a bullet
on target. |
|
| |
If I were put into a survival scenario with the possibility of
combat and limited to a single firearm, an M14 wouldn't be
a bad option, but I'd cut the sucker down to a skeleton
stock. |
|
| |
<realizes there's a "women and their shoes" correlation: a gun for every occasion> |
|
| |
//more durable, reliable, or low-maintanance weapon// Sten and offshoot SMG's. |
|
| |
What kind of MOA can you get out of a real AK-47 ? (not a civ clone which presumably have closer engineered tolerances) |
|
| |
Don't go all uber-patriot on me, [Quest]. Nobody likes that
guy. |
|
| |
// What kind of MOA can you get out of a real AK-47 ? // |
|
| |
At best, and this is bound to start a fight, you can probably
squeeze a genuine modern-day AK-47 down to 1.5 MOA
(I'm talking clamped to a test bench, best 10-of-100).
The rare milled-receiver variants were supposedly a bit
more accurate, but that's still using the term loosely. We're
talking about a gun that necessitated the development of a
special muzzle attachment not to improve accuracy but
simply to imbue it. |
|
| |
reason I asked is the tradeoff of field worthiness (and low cost) vs. accuracy. |
|
| |
You can send a Lee Enfield to a gunsmith and get back a .75 MOA (with match-grade ammo) rifle easily, but you wouldn't want your WWI or II squad equipped with them. Requirements at the time were IIRC 3" vertical and 2 horizontal @100yds with standard issue ammunition. |
|
| |
I think non-accurized AK47's are in the 4-5 moa department. |
|
| |
<leaves armchair momentarily>
A FAL will shoot 2" or better consistently with military grade ammo, out of the box, but you're unlikely to get near MOA no matter what kind of magic you imbue it with due to the tilting-block action.
<returns to armchair> |
|
| |
The serious attractions are very easy availability of parts, expertise and ammunition. |
|
| |
And of course "Does it look like I bought this to shoot paper ?" It's just a matter of how big the lawn you want people off of is. |
|
| |
A Sterling's even cheaper (to produce) and more robust. I've never shot one past 50m (I think I got 4" groups but it's been awhile). With a 7" barrel, 9mm parabellum ammo and actuating from an open bolt, I seriously doubt Internet claims of a 2" group at 50yards, even with a 16" carbine barrel. |
|
| |
[Quest], I give all credit where it's due. If it makes you feel
better I will freely acknowledge that the AK-47 is a
functional and deadly weapon; my earlier statements were
exaggerated for comedic effect, which I believed at the
time to be obvious. [Toaster] is right about the 4-5 MOA
ability of a field-grade AK, which is plenty accurate for
combat purposes. |
|
| |
To have it implied that my disdain for
the AK-47 automatically correlates to a disrespect for the
countless heroes and innocents killed or wounded by such
weapons is false and
borderline insulting. |
|
| |
I _would_ like to point out that most casualties in our
recent wars were/are caused by explosives and support
weapons such as mortars, machine guns, and sniper rifles
(and don't go trying to tell me that the Dragunov/PSO
variants are just like the AK; I once owned one, and I
assure you that the similarities are purely cosmetic). |
|
| |
Just out of curiosity, for those of us who aren't
firearms nuts, MOA? |
|
| |
I'm guessing something like measure of accuracy, but
I don't see how that interprets to a unitless number. |
|
| |
//Just out of curiosity, for those of us who aren't
firearms nuts, MOA? // |
|
| |
I googled it and decided on Minute Of Arc, ie 1/60
of 1 degree. Presumably the range of angles at
which a projectile leaves the barrel, although I
didn't bother checking against the numbers being
bandied around.
Or it could be an elaborate double-bluff involving
extinct flightless birds from New Zealand. |
|
| |
//I _would_ like to point out that most casualties
in our recent wars were/are caused by explosives
and support weapons such as mortars// |
|
| |
Yeah, but what MOA do they have, eigh? |
|
| |
Yes it's used as a gun-nut term for accuracy, though it does show up in manufacturer PR, also Wikipedia has a firearms subentry for "minutes of angle". At 100m, 1 minute is approximately 1 inch so it's a handy simple reference. |
|
| |
Mortar accuracy of course is measured in "Minutes of Volkswagen". |
|
| |