Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   If your girlfriend's dad comes to the door holding a shotgun, it's probably just for show. But if he's holding a samurai sword, run   (themercury.com.au) divider line 55
    More: Scary, samurai sword, shotguns, girlfriend  
•       •       •

10470 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jun 2010 at 10:17 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-06-02 07:29:32 AM  
Guns for show, knives for a pro.

/not obscure at all
 
2010-06-02 08:39:57 AM  
Perhaps the father was just getting ready to make some subs.
 
2010-06-02 08:43:10 AM  
i47.tinypic.com
 
2010-06-02 09:57:40 AM  
Did it have a dragon right on the blade?
 
2010-06-02 10:18:36 AM  
"Too many mind"
 
2010-06-02 10:20:10 AM  
What about a golf club? Or a war mace?
 
2010-06-02 10:20:12 AM  
DammitIForgotMyLogin: Guns for show, knives for a pro.

/not obscure at all


I Powder, and my brother Ball
Hero-like, do conquer all.

/Somewhat more obscure
//There is a reason why the Japanese military went to guns instead of retaining swords back in the 1800's.
 
2010-06-02 10:21:22 AM  
DammitIForgotMyLogin: Guns for show, knives for a pro.

Is there something about you we should know?

FTFA: "The Supreme Court in Hobart heard Hillier was renting a room at a house in Warrane while his daughter Theresa Hillier and Mr Richardson lived in a caravan parked out the front."

Goddamit, this is too easy.
 
2010-06-02 10:26:00 AM  
FTFA: "Leonard John Hillier, 49, admitted causing grievous bodily harm to William Richardson, 26, last December."

It's nice to see one of the other Horsemen getting work.
 
2010-06-02 10:28:21 AM  
Hey dad, just to let you know, it's your strangle hold tactics that made your little girl turn to the c0ck.
 
2010-06-02 10:29:11 AM  
Argoran: FTFA: "Leonard John Hillier, 49, admitted causing grievous bodily harm to William Richardson, 26, last December."

It's nice to see one of the other Horsemen getting work.


As long as it's not no alcohol lager, that is.
 
2010-06-02 10:29:57 AM  
There can be only one guy who farks my daughter!
 
2010-06-02 10:29:58 AM  
Mr Richardson told him to "stay out of it" and Hillier replied: "I'll have you fixed in a minute." He then grabbed a 42cm cut-off samurai sword he kept in his room.

A 16 1/2 inch cut-off "samurai sword"?

More likely a once-broken stainless steel vaguely sword shaped POS.

(they'll cut ya wide open!)
 
2010-06-02 10:30:26 AM  
Nice to know this guy will most likely do less time than lots of people busted for selling weed.
 
2010-06-02 10:32:19 AM  
FTFA:Hillier will be eligible to apply for parole after serving two years of his sentence.

The court heard it was his second stint in jail. He spent four months behind bars many years ago for another crime of violence.


If I ever decide to become a homicidal madman, I know which country I'm going to do it in.

This is the surest sign the nation was founded by convicts, you can try to kill people and be out in two years.
 
2010-06-02 10:33:30 AM  
Samurai-Sword-Wedding doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
 
2010-06-02 10:34:36 AM  
Cozret: FTFA:Hillier will be eligible to apply for parole after serving two years of his sentence.

The court heard it was his second stint in jail. He spent four months behind bars many years ago for another crime of violence.

If I ever decide to become a homicidal madman, I know which country I'm going to do it in.

This is the surest sign the nation was founded by convicts, you can try to kill people and be out in two years.


Drunken crime of passion, guy turns himself in when the cops call him on the phone, nobody dies...In your world, how long should he be in jail?
 
2010-06-02 10:36:21 AM  
Sir Vanderhoot: Samurai-Sword-Wedding doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

But it sounds at least 1000x more awesome!

/you will honor my daughter and respect our family or face my steel, etc, etc.
 
2010-06-02 10:37:51 AM  
"Justice Evans said Hillier's actions had ruined his relationship with his daughter, who had since moved away from Hobart with Mr Richardson."

Great, so when Mr. Richardson decides to beat the snot out of the daughter in a drunken rage, Dad's pesky samurai sword will be no where around.. Great thinkin, daughter....
 
2010-06-02 10:38:27 AM  
images.usatoday.com
 
2010-06-02 10:50:57 AM  
I suppose the traditional way to conclude this is, we cross Hanzo swords. Well, it just so happens, this hacienda comes with its very own private beach. And this private beach just so happens to look particularly beautiful bathed in moonlight. And there just so happens to be a full moon out tonight. So, swordfighter, if you want to sword fight, that's where I suggest. But if you wanna be old school about it - and you know I'm all about old school - then we can wait till dawn, and slice each other up at sunrise, like a couple real-life, honest-to-goodness samurais.
 
2010-06-02 10:52:08 AM  
i259.photobucket.com
 
2010-06-02 10:53:00 AM  
Lol takes me back to the day my soon to be husband and I told my parents we where living together and eloping....dad told my husband to leave or the next thing he would hear was a gun blast in his ear. Then he went into the house and got his 44 magnum pistol with the 10.5 inch barrel. We left, eloped the next day and have been married happily for almost 10 years now. Now dad and my husband get along great and share a passion for MST3K.
 
2010-06-02 10:54:10 AM  
DammitIForgotMyLogin: As long as it's not no alcohol lager, that is.

No worries there. I think he's been banned.

/No alcohol lager?
//laughed off of Fark by the masses!
 
2010-06-02 10:59:22 AM  
dittybopper: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Guns for show, knives for a pro.

/not obscure at all

I Powder, and my brother Ball
Hero-like, do conquer all.

/Somewhat more obscure
//There is a reason why the Japanese military went to guns instead of retaining swords back in the 1800's.


Well, basically, swords were pretty useless in massed infantry combat unless things got too close even in the days of bows and spears. Firearms just gave them a way to train masses of folk quickly with ranged weapons, unlike archery which required intense practice.
Now, if combat is within a few feet swords can still be effective- provided that someone doesn't have a magazine-loaded firearm out and ready. The thing they did on knife fighters having an advantage on cops with pistols in ranges closer than 20 feet did not assume the cop a, had his pistol out, and b, would start shooting you the moment you moved towards him.
/don't get me wrong- I love blades, even make them, but also being a student of history you've got to face reality.
 
2010-06-02 10:59:32 AM  
Satanicpuppy: Drunken crime of passion, guy turns himself in when the cops call him on the phone, nobody dies...In your world, how long should he be in jail?

The "nobody died" was chance, it's a meaningless excuse used by weak people like you. Second offense, he should be in jail turning large rocks into small ones until he's too old to be a danger to anyone else . . .However, that's not quite the right punishment, but a cry baby like you doesn't have the stomach for the correct solution to the problem.
 
2010-06-02 11:10:04 AM  
Just goes to show.....DON'T have a fight with a girl if her Dad is in the front yard with you.....It doesn't matter whose wrong or right or what the fight is about, if you're a Dad and some guy (boyfriend or husband) is fighting with your little girl, you WILL DO SOMETHING and it may not be the smartest thing to do. Any father will understand that, and if he doesn't then he isn't much of a father.
 
2010-06-02 11:12:23 AM  
Satanicpuppy: Cozret: FTFA:Hillier will be eligible to apply for parole after serving two years of his sentence.

The court heard it was his second stint in jail. He spent four months behind bars many years ago for another crime of violence.

If I ever decide to become a homicidal madman, I know which country I'm going to do it in.

This is the surest sign the nation was founded by convicts, you can try to kill people and be out in two years.

Drunken crime of passion, guy turns himself in when the cops call him on the phone, nobody dies...In your world, how long should he be in jail?


For his second conviction of a violent crime, and attempted second degree murder? I dont know, 30 days community service?
 
2010-06-02 11:20:03 AM  
cynicalbastard: unlike archery which required intense practice.

Actually, it doesn't require as much practice as you would think, if you are fighting against unarmored opponents.

The English and Welsh longbowmen were effective in large part because they used heavy bows that shot heavy arrows, but even by they time of Agincourt those bows couldn't penetrate good quality armor except at the very closest range, and even then they couldn't penetrate the best armor except if they happened to hit a joint just right.

It actually doesn't take much longer to teach someone how to shoot a reasonable weight bow than it does to show them how to shoot a smoothbore musket, and they'll be just about as accurate with either. The advantage that a bow has is that you can visually see where you are hitting, and adjust accordingly.

If you aren't shooting at armored opponents, you can use a much lighter arrow, which means you can use a much lighter bow. I have a 55 lb recurve that will send a hunting arrow just as far as a 100+ lb English longbow would send a heavy war arrow, perhaps even farther.

Also, if you are shooting volley-style at a mass of enemy troops, you don't need to be able to aim as precisely. It doesn't take Robin Hood levels of accuracy to be an effective bowman, you just need to be able to get the arrow in the general area of where the opposing troops happen to be. You can train someone to do that in a fairly short time.

Practicing enough to be able to hit the vitals of a deer at 30 yards takes a lot more time, of course.

/Only shoot shoot traditional, no training wheels.
//Instinctive, no sights either.
 
2010-06-02 11:21:48 AM  
h.imagehost.org
 
2010-06-02 11:26:42 AM  
Satanicpuppy: Cozret: FTFA:Hillier will be eligible to apply for parole after serving two years of his sentence.

The court heard it was his second stint in jail. He spent four months behind bars many years ago for another crime of violence.

If I ever decide to become a homicidal madman, I know which country I'm going to do it in.

This is the surest sign the nation was founded by convicts, you can try to kill people and be out in two years.

Drunken crime of passion, guy turns himself in when the cops call him on the phone, nobody dies...In your world, how long should he be in jail?


It doesn't say that the father was drunk. It was a drunken argument between the daughter and her boyfriend. It also says that this is is second time jailed for violence...I would say more then 4 years!
 
2010-06-02 11:29:23 AM  
dittybopper: cynicalbastard: unlike archery which required intense practice.

Actually, it doesn't require as much practice as you would think, if you are fighting against unarmored opponents.


Well, that's the kicker. For most infantry actions dating back to the Persian Wars until the 16th century and even later, a good number of your opposition was likely to be armoured to some degree or another. Pikemen wore helmet, breast and backplates clear into the English Civil War, iirc. By then, in any case, the writing was on the wall and the bow was essentially gone as a weapon of war, supplanted by the musket. Then someone figured out the mechanics of making a bayonet that could be fitted to the musket and still allow firing, and the pikeman became part of history.
 
2010-06-02 11:33:02 AM  
DammitIForgotMyLogin: Argoran: FTFA: "Leonard John Hillier, 49, admitted causing grievous bodily harm to William Richardson, 26, last December."

It's nice to see one of the other Horsemen getting work.

As long as it's not no alcohol lager, that is.


No, he's People Covered in Fish.
 
2010-06-02 11:33:39 AM  
The Gathering is going to be so kick-ass. (new window)

Obama will be there. And Putin. Queen Elizabeth II. Robert Mugabe. Sean Connery. Ted Turner. Paul McCartney. Chuck Norris. Ted Nugent.

It is going to be so kick-ass.
 
2010-06-02 11:34:00 AM  
Satanicpuppy: Cozret: FTFA:Hillier will be eligible to apply for parole after serving two years of his sentence.

The court heard it was his second stint in jail. He spent four months behind bars many years ago for another crime of violence.

If I ever decide to become a homicidal madman, I know which country I'm going to do it in.

This is the surest sign the nation was founded by convicts, you can try to kill people and be out in two years.

Drunken crime of passion, guy turns himself in when the cops call him on the phone, nobody dies...In your world, how long should he be in jail?


Well, anytime you impale someone, I think it's safe to call it attempted murder, which should carry a stiffer punishment than 2 years with good behavior, especially if it's not your first offense.
 
2010-06-02 11:40:24 AM  
DammitIForgotMyLogin: Argoran: FTFA: "Leonard John Hillier, 49, admitted causing grievous bodily harm to William Richardson, 26, last December."

It's nice to see one of the other Horsemen getting work.

As long as it's not no alcohol lager, that is.


No more changing your name.

/this is why I love Fark - nowere else could I hear people quoting Good Omens
 
2010-06-02 11:48:22 AM  
cynicalbastard: dittybopper: cynicalbastard: unlike archery which required intense practice.

Actually, it doesn't require as much practice as you would think, if you are fighting against unarmored opponents.


Well, that's the kicker. For most infantry actions dating back to the Persian Wars until the 16th century and even later, a good number of your opposition was likely to be armoured to some degree or another. Pikemen wore helmet, breast and backplates clear into the English Civil War, iirc. By then, in any case, the writing was on the wall and the bow was essentially gone as a weapon of war, supplanted by the musket. Then someone figured out the mechanics of making a bayonet that could be fitted to the musket and still allow firing, and the pikeman became part of history.


Well, yes and no.

There was no real technological reason to drop the bow, other than it was largely considered to be "old fashioned" by a number of elements in Britain. It was no less effective in 1550 or 1650 than it was in 1350 against unarmored troops, and even troops that are partially armored (like pikemen) are vulnerable. It's hard to fight effectively with arrows wounds to your arms and legs, and at close range your face is very vulnerable.

It was to a large part a political decision, not really a sound tactical decision, to drop the bow.

Part of the reason for the decision was that because guns were more expensive than bows, it was easier for the government to control the supply of them and to largely exclude the peasantry from the individual ownership of the tools of war, making an uprising against the Crown less likely.
 
2010-06-02 12:03:46 PM  
So I guess you could say her dad is so Australian he's in prison.
 
2010-06-02 12:04:30 PM  
Sork
*pic*

This'll end badly.
 
2010-06-02 12:22:04 PM  
Something tells me Sork's pic is NSFW.

Nobody has pants on and there is, uh, exposure. I know lots of people see it, but nobody is brave enough to say it because they will be accused of looking.
 
2010-06-02 12:27:29 PM  
dittybopper: cynicalbastard: dittybopper: cynicalbastard: unlike archery which required intense practice.

Actually, it doesn't require as much practice as you would think, if you are fighting against unarmored opponents.


Well, that's the kicker. For most infantry actions dating back to the Persian Wars until the 16th century and even later, a good number of your opposition was likely to be armoured to some degree or another. Pikemen wore helmet, breast and backplates clear into the English Civil War, iirc. By then, in any case, the writing was on the wall and the bow was essentially gone as a weapon of war, supplanted by the musket. Then someone figured out the mechanics of making a bayonet that could be fitted to the musket and still allow firing, and the pikeman became part of history.

Well, yes and no.

There was no real technological reason to drop the bow, other than it was largely considered to be "old fashioned" by a number of elements in Britain. It was no less effective in 1550 or 1650 than it was in 1350 against unarmored troops, and even troops that are partially armored (like pikemen) are vulnerable. It's hard to fight effectively with arrows wounds to your arms and legs, and at close range your face is very vulnerable.

It was to a large part a political decision, not really a sound tactical decision, to drop the bow.

Part of the reason for the decision was that because guns were more expensive than bows, it was easier for the government to control the supply of them and to largely exclude the peasantry from the individual ownership of the tools of war, making an uprising against the Crown less likely.


When do you think that the bow became technologically obsolete (instead of politically and/or socially obsolete) then? Or do you feel that there are still uses for the bow and arrow today?
 
2010-06-02 12:44:09 PM  
Crotchrocket Slim: When do you think that the bow became technologically obsolete (instead of politically and/or socially obsolete) then? Or do you feel that there are still uses for the bow and arrow today?

The longbow was technologically obsolete around the time of the Napoleonic and American Civil Wars.

However, dittybopper is missing the fact that it was economically obsolete after the Black Death. The social and economic upheavals that followed the Black Death led to a shift away from massed peasantry to a more stratified, specialized and productive workforce. You just couldn't get decent bowmen anymore... but you can train anybody to be effective with a musket in just a couple of days.
 
2010-06-02 12:48:28 PM  
Veteran of the Cola Wars: Something tells me Sork's pic is NSFW.

Nobody has pants on and there is, uh, exposure. I know lots of people see it, but nobody is brave enough to say it because they will be accused of looking.


If you have to look hard to maybe see something that might resemble bare skin in a place that would by some be considered lewd, then it mustn't be that unsafe ;)

The pic btw is from a set from 2005 where a japanese guy took surprise photos of people making out in cars on a local "love parking lot". Sadly I only kept the interesting one, and they were not about voyerism but pranking.
 
2010-06-02 01:05:10 PM  
Actual Headline: "Father jail for sword attack"

That's some fine headline writing there, Lou.
 
2010-06-02 01:19:12 PM  
dittybopper: Part of the reason for the decision was that because guns were more expensive than bows, it was easier for the government to control the supply of them and to largely exclude the peasantry from the individual ownership of the tools of war, making an uprising against the Crown less likely.

There is quite another factor at work. While the individual weapons may have been pricier, ammunition was cheaper- by quite a large factor. Rolling cartridges could be done by anyone who had an appropriate-sized measure and some paper. Lead balls were easy to cast. But making arrows required not only a skilled fletcher but a competant smith.
And the power of the musket was not diminished by conditions such as tired or hungry troops, which was a constant issue in protracted campaigns.
 
2010-06-02 01:26:20 PM  
Archery is simple really, just be sure to lower your bow into visual position, breath through the pull/release, momentarily speak in a faux English accent, strip the feathers from your arrows using your teeth and have Christian Slater as your long lost brother.

See? ...nothing to it...
 
2010-06-02 01:44:09 PM  
jepzilla: Crotchrocket Slim: When do you think that the bow became technologically obsolete (instead of politically and/or socially obsolete) then? Or do you feel that there are still uses for the bow and arrow today?

The longbow was technologically obsolete around the time of the Napoleonic and American Civil Wars.


Yes. Once aimed rifle fire and effective artillery took over the battlefield, troops armed with bows would have been slaughtered.

Against troops armed with smoothbore muskets, though, even relatively minimally trained bowmen would have the advantage.

However, dittybopper is missing the fact that it was economically obsolete after the Black Death. The social and economic upheavals that followed the Black Death led to a shift away from massed peasantry to a more stratified, specialized and productive workforce. You just couldn't get decent bowmen anymore... but you can train anybody to be effective with a musket in just a couple of days.


My point was that by that time, you didn't *NEED* 'decent' bowmen anymore. You didn't need men who could shoot in a 100+ lb longbow, bows of much more modest draw weight would have been fine because you didn't need to fling a stout shaft with a heavy armor-piercing bodkin on the end of it.

You can train even a fairly stupid and out-of-shape person to shoot a 50 or 60 lb pull bow in a militarily effective manner (ie., volley fire at massed troops within 200 yards) in just a few days, about the same amount of time it takes to train someone how to use a matchlock or flintlock musket. The effective range of the bowmen will be much greater than the musketeers, however, and their rate of fire will be higher.

You can make several bows, and the arrows to match, for the cost of a single musket.

Bows are less effected by poor weather than matchlock and flintlock muskets: A properly varnished bow with a properly waxed string is basically impervious to rain, despite French excuses for Crecy.

The one big disadvantage that bows have over muskets is their ammunition requirements: It takes more space to carry 100 arrows than it takes to carry 100 musket balls and a couple ounces of powder. This is offset in part though by the fact that arrows are largely reusable if you can retrieve them, whereas bullets for the most part aren't, and once powder is burnt, it's gone for good.

Part of the problem with retaining bowmen is that there was the impression, doubtlessly true at least in part, that the archers of the late 1500's shot less powerful bows than those in the 1300's and early 1400's. But the nature of the targets had changed also: No longer were you shooting at fully armored knights, which required a heavy armor piercing arrow, and hence a heavy bow to throw it out far enough.

It was actually recognized, at least by some such as Sir John Smythe, that the bow was better than the arquebus, but the Privy Council at the time was pressing for more arquebusers because that was what foreign governments were doing. This led to fewer and fewer people practicing with the bow because it led to the impression that bows, being 'old-fashioned', weren't militarily useful.

Another factor often overlooked is the effect that price controls had on the quality of bows and on the number of bowyers: The Crown had established maximum prices for a finished bow that didn't change for more than 80 years, while the cost of good bowstaves had risen 6 fold, forcing many bowyers to get out of the business because of lack of profits. By the time those price controls were partially repealed in 1566, the damage had already been done: The bowyers that were left were turning out inferior bows because that's all they could afford to make, and that helped the impression that bows weren't useful.

Then too, we have the fact that diet and exercise of the prospective soldier had changed from the Fourteenth Century to the Sixteenth Century: The Plague and other illnesses, combined with the 'Little Ice Age' meant that there was less food for those who did survive, and they weren't as strong as their forefathers. That lead to them being less able to shoot in a strong bow, but again this was a problem of perception, not of actual fact, because bows of lesser power are just as effective against unarmored soldiery.
 
2010-06-02 01:52:09 PM  
Also, the crossbow.

Well, except for the countries that outlawed the crossbow because of the danger it posed.

Even after bows were considered outdated, the crossbow and to a much lesser extent, the slug-thrower were still in use.

The slug thrower, for those that don't know, was like a crossbow slingshot. It would have anywhere between 200 and 300 pounds of pull, and would fire a lead ball. The only real advantage the slug thrower had over a musket was the fact that it was nearly silent. It was the favoured weapon on anarchists and assassins.
 
2010-06-02 02:29:17 PM  
cynicalbastard: dittybopper: Part of the reason for the decision was that because guns were more expensive than bows, it was easier for the government to control the supply of them and to largely exclude the peasantry from the individual ownership of the tools of war, making an uprising against the Crown less likely.

There is quite another factor at work. While the individual weapons may have been pricier, ammunition was cheaper- by quite a large factor. Rolling cartridges could be done by anyone who had an appropriate-sized measure and some paper. Lead balls were easy to cast. But making arrows required not only a skilled fletcher but a competant smith.


Balancing that out is the fact that once a bullet and powder have been shot, they are gone for good, but a large number of arrows can be retrieved from a battlefield and reused, perhaps even most of them.

In fact, the Yorkists did just that to the Lancastrians at the Battle of Towton: Having fired their first volley (with a significant wind at their back), they stepped back and watched the Lancastrian volley fall short. They then retrieved the Lancastrian arrows and fired them back at their erstwhile owners.

The real problem with arrows as ammunition is that they are much more bulky than powder and ball, and thus take up more space in your ships and on your wagons.


And the power of the musket was not diminished by conditions such as tired or hungry troops, which was a constant issue in protracted campaigns.


But they can be made largely useless in wet weather. Less so for flintlocks, of course, but certainly for matchlocks.

And you don't necessarily need a heavy warbow for use against unarmored targets, something that perhaps wasn't recognized back then. Even tired and hungry troops can shoot a 50 or 60 lb bow effectively. If they are too weak for that, they won't be able to use an arquebus effectively either.
 
2010-06-02 04:23:28 PM  
dittybopper: /Only shoot shoot traditional, no training wheels.
//Instinctive, no sights either.


I bet you get a lot of looks when you go to shooting ranges. People always used to question me on how I managed to shoot my recurve completely barebow. The best part was when I could shoot a tighter group than the guy next to me with a compound bow fitted with optical sights.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report