18 Responses to Chapter 5 | Page 179

  1. S
    Scorpinac says:

    Little girl with a loaded rifle. Not entirely sure how to feel about that one.

    • Myk Streja says:

      Proud that her parents taught her gun safety and how to use such a weapon when needed. This child was not coddled.

      • V
        Varyon says:

        She’s not really holding that rifle in a way that would be useful for handling the recoil, but then again she may not be quite strong enough to comfortably hold it to her shoulder. There’s no guarantee she’s actually learned gun safety (or at least what gun safety existed back then – many of the modern rules like “finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot” weren’t really a thing until some time after WWII, for example). Fortunately, this is a comedy, so if she does have a negligent discharge, it will either fail to hit anyone (and possibly comically send the weapon flying back, potentially hitting something trying to sneak up on them) or will hit sword-boy as he’s trying to sneakily draw a pistol (assuming he has an extra after loaning his to the would-be executioner) or something. “Great shot Charlie, he almost got the drop on us!” “Errr… you’re welcome?”

        • Thorin Mason Schmidt says:

          She has the most important part of early firearm handling down: “Don’t let the ball roll out the end of the barrel.”

    • mvandinter says:

      The Author is not a proponent of children handling firearms. However, when The Author was a little boy himself, he would not have concurred.

    • Thorin Mason Schmidt says:

      Your 21st Century is showing.

  2. Myk Streja says:

    Shoot him anyway, it’s not like that wasn’t why he had them out there in the first place.

  3. mvandinter says:

    I don’t think you guys will be shocked when I tell you this story is unlikely to turn all murdery 😉

  4. Maju says:

    Shooting pans: the future of warfare, no doubt.

  5. F
    Frank says:

    You have to admit, it worked.

    The thing with Charlie holding the gun, she doesn’t have to be doing it right. All she needs to do have a 25% of introducing an virulent infection into him. She doesn’t HAVE to be good at this. All he has to do is be unlucky. And man does his luck suck today.

    • mvandinter says:

      Godfrey’s holding two loaded pistols. Whatever Philo and Charlie do is just a sideshow.

      • F
        Frank says:

        Indeed.

      • Maju says:

        C’mon. Let Charlie do what she’s good at. I doubt Godfrey could kill a fly, he’s too disciplined, on the other hand the women in the troupe, those have the right temper to kill and feel zero remorse, just a mild adrenaline high at best.

        • Thorin Mason Schmidt says:

          Disciplines does not mean squeamish. It means he is ready to do whatever service Philo needs. It was that same discipline that kept the British fighting in WW2 during the Blitz, before the US entered and after the French had given up.

          • Maju says:

            C’mon! What kept the Brits unoccupied in WWII was only the Channel. All the rest is a Simpsons’ bigotric joke. Who protected the rear of the Brits as they were evacuating Dunkirk? I’ll grant you that British peasants can be submissive to the point of making the nefarious error of Watt Tyler or putting up with the inconsistent vagaries of Cromwell in a way that definitely French ones aren’t (Robespierre and Danton had concepts much more clear) but, anyway, I still don’t see the guys in this story shooting anything dead at all, the women on the other hand…

            • Thorin Mason Schmidt says:

              I didn’t say unoccupied. I said unbeaten. Hitler wasn’t bombing them to invade, he was bombing them so they would stop fighting. But they didn’t.

              • Maju says:

                Define “unbeaten”. Are Great Andamanese “unbeaten” because accessing the island is forbidden (and would eat you raw if you ignore the law as happened to tha pesky missionary)? When bombs are falling on your roof every other night, that souds to me like a very bad beating, even if somehow you manage to get on your foot again.

                Anyhow, the only reason why France was beaten (other than their conservative approach to warfare) was because they had a land border and insisted on not extending the Maginot Line all the way to the North Sea. And the only reason Britain resisted other than the Channel was its massive navy, second only to none in those days.

                There was a time when England had no serious navy and was invaded every other day by those who had one, namely the Vikings and their French cousins the Normans. Maybe we can discuss the English discipline and invulnerability to beatings in 1066?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *