Jump to content

Robert Strong vs You


The Commentator

Recommended Posts

It's gun culture in a fearful country. Fear isn't macho but guns are, so the guns become security blankets for scared people who want to seem macho. That's my take, anyway.

It's also an interesting question: What modern weapon could damage Robert Strong? Can this thing BE killed with a revolver? His helmet would expose his eyes. Would a bullet through the eye kill it? If not, you'd need to take out both its eyes, then switch to a sword and try and take him out through the chinks in its armor while he bumbles about, blind. Even then, would sword strikes through these bits kill him? He might survive long enough to take you out, as you tire, and he doesn't. Yikes.

I think you'd need a bomb strong enough to liquidate him, or a flame thrower that burns the flesh, reducing him to bones with no connecting tissue...something drastic, in short.

...that also means that if Cersei uses Strong in a trial by combat, she'll win.

 

Fear is how powers that be control the masses.

My point exactly. People in my country aren't fearful. There are still a lot of firearms in my country but the general thinking is "hunting animals", not shooting at people, that's a really big no-no.

Whereas the reasoning of some US gun gung-ho vigilante types is "justice" and killing other people. I see my country and the US and the EU being compared for number of firearms, and my country always shows up on top, on the number of licenced firearms and types permitted. Yet, we don't top the list in firearms killings. Hmm.

The statistics don't take account of the person behind the gun. I'd say, people in my country might have lots of guns but they're reluctant to shoot at anything else than paper targets or approved game (moose/elk, hare, duckg/geese). US Americans have as many or more guns than we have, and they're willing to shoot at other humans. It goes back to their glorified "wild west" history and the glorified amendment of their constitution, which was made at a time of war. The North American colonies trying to get rid of their imperial English overlords. Nothing bad about that, most countries dominated by the English wanted/want that. The problem is that a war-time expediency - all free men allowed to carry (fire)arms - entered the contitution.

Well, we are where we are.

And I'd definitely hide from the Mountain. I have no idea how I'd fight or kill him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's also an interesting question: What modern weapon could damage Robert Strong? Can this thing BE killed with a revolver? His helmet would expose his eyes. Would a bullet through the eye kill it? If not, you'd need to take out both its eyes, then switch to a sword and try and take him out through the chinks in its armor while he bumbles about, blind. Even then, would sword strikes through these bits kill him? He might survive long enough to take you out, as you tire, and he doesn't. Yikes.

I think you'd need a bomb strong enough to liquidate him, or a flame thrower that burns the flesh, reducing him to bones with no connecting tissue...something drastic, in short.

...that also means that if Cersei uses Strong in a trial by combat, she'll win.

Cutting/damaging the legs could allow sufficient rest time to cut everything else to bits.

Best weapon against UnGregor besides explosives/flamethrowers would be a great big poleaxe or glaive to chop down his legs and arms while staying at a distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun wank.

Is this an American thing?

My country has almost as many licenced fireweapons as the US, but all strictly controlled. Nobody glorifies guns. Practical. Hunting. They're a part of everyday life in some of the more peripheral communities. There was an amnesty, and lots of people handed back firearms, because they'd inherited them and couldn't meet the new standards for licencing. We handed back most of our granpas' hunting rifles and war memento pistols. They weren't exactly licenced, and no ammo could've been bought for them (you need a gun licence to buy ammo).

My father went through the hoops (hunter's exams (identify every possible prey), psychological assesment etc.) to get a licence for one of the small rifles. I've enjoyed target practice with it (KABOOM! better than an air rifle, longer range and bigger impact), and being a better shot than either of my brothers who've both done the compulsory military training. But I'm not really that into it. Calibers mean nothing to me.

As to the Montain. I'd just hide.

Or run. And die.

A number of the worlds largest arms manufacturers are based in the USA and they spend billions on advertising and lobbying to make sure that the public stays afraid and keeps buying their product.  If the US got most of it's guns from overseas manufacturers, you would not see the deference to the NRA that our politicians have, and the USA would surely have more reasonable gun control laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of the worlds largest arms manufacturers are based in the USA and they spend billions on advertising and lobbying to make sure that the public stays afraid and keeps buying their product.  If the US got most of it's guns from overseas manufacturers, you would not see the deference to the NRA that our politicians have, and the USA would surely have more reasonable gun control laws.

I think it's something to do with the US constitutuion - much of which was an emergency military law to fight the English overlords. So, not a very good basis for all future to come.

The best bits of the US Declaration of Independence are formulated on the Scots Declaration of Arbroath (1321) "the people are sovereign" yada yada. This leads to all the hooha in the rUK and Scotland today. Elizabeth II is supposedly soveregn in the UK, but Scots don't think so, because in Scotland people are sovereign as per the declaration of Arbroath. It's even been tested by a legal case in the 1950s, confirming people, not the monach, are sovereign in Scotland. The monarch might be supreme and above the law in England, but not in Scotland.

To get back on topic... Gun laws in my country have sort of evolved over a longer period. Sure, the smallfolk got guns, but they're for hunting, a necessary part of subsistence agricultural/pastoral living, supplementing the family income by some meat and furs to sell.

I'd never want to meet the Montain for a fight.  Even if I had acces to the family rifle. I'd have qualms about killing another human being... My qualms would be forgotten when the undead monster that the Mountain now apparenty is, kills me. The end.

I just hope Qyburn has made some mistake and Ser Robert Strong malfunctiones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That part of the Constitution has been re-interpreted many times by the Supreme Court, and the current interpretation is the most generous to gun owners and gun manufacturers yet.  Prior to 1939, the states and the federal government were able to tightly regulate what kinds of weapons were available to civilians and where guns were allowed to be possessed and sold.  The part in the 2nd amendment that refers to "well-regulated militia" meant that the only kind of weapons that were protected by the Constitution were military-style weapons that were used in militias.  The USA had much more reasonable gun control prior to that - some towns did not allow guns at all, states were free to prohibit certain classes of weapons from being sold, and the congress was able to easily pass National Firearms Act in 1934, which made several classes of weapons illegal, required firearm registration, and regulated the sale and resale of firearms.  This was challenged and found unconstitutional, and since then there's been very little gun control in the USA.

Thing is, courts change and that interpretation can (and almost certainly will) be replaced by a more reasonable one.  We will have a much more liberal Supreme Court in a few years, and they could easily decide that laws that prohibited the private ownership of firearms except for members of registered and organized militias were perfectly constitutional and it would fit the Amendment as written better than the current interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part of the Constitution has been re-interpreted many times by the Supreme Court, and the current interpretation is the most generous to gun owners and gun manufacturers yet.  Prior to 1939, the states and the federal government were able to tightly regulate what kinds of weapons were available to civilians and where guns were allowed to be possessed and sold.  The part in the 2nd amendment that refers to "well-regulated militia" meant that the only kind of weapons that were protected by the Constitution were military-style weapons that were used in militias.  The USA had much more reasonable gun control prior to that - some towns did not allow guns at all, states were free to prohibit certain classes of weapons from being sold, and the congress was able to easily pass National Firearms Act in 1934, which made several classes of weapons illegal, required firearm registration, and regulated the sale and resale of firearms.  This was challenged and found unconstitutional, and since then there's been very little gun control in the USA.
Thing is, courts change and that interpretation can (and almost certainly will) be replaced by a more reasonable one.  We will have a much more liberal Supreme Court in a few years, and they could easily decide that laws that prohibited the private ownership of firearms except for members of registered and organized militias were perfectly constitutional and it would fit the Amendment as written better than the current interpretation.

I think you just made my earlier point. Guns are embedded in the US constitution and psyche, and you cannot get rid of them without modern, contorted legal thingamagingies.

The funny thing is, my country never had a proper gun law until the 1920's or so. Every farmer and country person had a gun for hunting, and the meat/furs were a way to supplement income. We have a tradion of guns, LOTS of licenced firearms, certainly more than in any of our European neighbours. But the guns in my country are for killing animals (hunting). The idea of shooting another human being for vigilante justice/revenge/whatever is just abhorrent. The gun-weilding guys in my country would rather shoot themselves (and they do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you just made my earlier point. Guns are embedded in the US constitution and psyche, and you cannot get rid of them without modern, contorted legal thingamagingies.

The funny thing is, my country never had a proper gun law until the 1920's or so. Every farmer and country person had a gun for hunting, and the meat/furs were a way to supplement income. We have a tradion of guns, LOTS of licenced firearms, certainly more than in any of our European neighbours. But the guns in my country are for killing animals (hunting). The idea of shooting another human being for vigilante justice/revenge/whatever is just abhorrent. The gun-weilding guys in my country would rather shoot themselves (and they do).

That's not my point, though - guns are not embedded in the Constitution (it only guarantees the right to "well-regulated militias") and the idea that gun ownership should be largely unrestricted is a relatively modern invention.  It's perpetuated for primarily economic reasons, but with nobody devoting huge amounts of financial and political resources to keeping guns part of the "American Way of Life", I think the USA would quickly catch up with the rest of the world.  

Arms manufacturers got a HUGE amount of wealth and influence as a result of WWII and the Cold War and used this to their own advantage by making Americans see gun ownership as being a fundamental part of being American.  President Eisenhower warned us of the increasing power and danger of the military industrial complex back in the 1950s, and we are reaping the results of that today.  

Americans are easily convinced that whatever the ruling class wants is the way it's always been.  In the 1950s, when we went through the red scare, "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance and today most Americans think it's always been like that.  They are told that our leadership has always been Christian and don't realize that religiosity in America has been increasing and there were several presidents who openly had religious views that would be considered heretical to modern evangelists.  They are told that abortion has always been condemned by Christians, when for a good chunk of American history protestants were accepting of early term abortion and it was only in areas with a large Catholic population that it was prohibited.  They are taught that modernity increases promiscuity and teen pregnancy and ignore that teen pregnancy rates have been dropping steadily since the 1950s.  Americans were told that Americans always owned lots of guns and that was the way it was and should be, and have a fictitious image of the "wild west" where everybody was armed, when in fact gun control was much stronger and gun ownership a lot rarer back then.

Fortunately, this means when public opinion shifts, it will be harder for the gun fetishists to reverse the change.  In a few decades I'm sure we'll have very strong gun control laws, and most people will be shocked to learn or refuse to believe that in the past that almost any kind of firearm was freely available to the general public.  Once we get that genie back in the bottle, it should be easy to keep it there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I limited to playing Samwell the craven?  There's no point in fighting then.  It's just a question of who can run faster between Sam and Robert Strong. 

Recoil is nothing to laugh about.  The biggest rifle caliber I've shot is a 30.06 on a heavy rig.  It kicked, brother.  I'm not experienced with revolvers, but knowing there is a correlation between velocity, bullet weight, and pistol weight, I'm thinking it's not easy to handle a powerful handgun.  This is Sam we're asking to do the shooting.  He's gonna close his eyes then pull the trigger.  I'll go with .357 Mag and hope Sam can hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm no coward, and I'm not a bad marksman with an air rifle (I'm British so I have no idea how I'd do with a real gun), but if Robert Strong was set on killing me my plan would be "Run like hell", and if he catches me then a round through my own skull sounds less painful than getting my head crushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

I'm no coward, and I'm not a bad marksman with an air rifle (I'm British so I have no idea how I'd do with a real gun), but if Robert Strong was set on killing me my plan would be "Run like hell", and if he catches me then a round through my own skull sounds less painful than getting my head crushed.

:lmao:So true!!! I was once on a topic that dissolved into Brits arguing with Americans over gun control (it got shut down).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd use a knife to make dum-dums for a .45 Magnum and risk him getting closer to me so I could aim full blast at his visor. The armour, no matter how strong it is, would cave straight back into his face. And he'd be blinded no matter what happened, but he'd most likely be dead within two shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

My weapon of choice is an electric car with a solar powered roof ... I'd use it to drive the hell away from Kings Landing and to keep driving until I reach Highgarden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TimJames said:

My weapon of choice is an electric car with a solar powered roof ... I'd use it to drive the hell away from Kings Landing and to keep driving until I reach Highgarden.

But winter is coming, and with winter comes cloudy skys, and rain to turn the earth roads to mud...

Not many repair shops between Kings Landing and Highgarden!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

But winter is coming, and with winter comes cloudy skys, and rain to turn the earth roads to mud...

Not many repair shops between Kings Landing and Highgarden!

... good point. 

New Plan! I'd bring THIS poster, laminated to avoid water damage, and try to run away on foot. Semly shows us how easy it is for a man to hide in plain sight from people who want you dead, so sneaking out of Kings Landing shouldn't be too hard.

Once I'm out, I'll pretend to be a Begging Brother and beg my way from Kings Landing to Oldtown. Once there, I'll try to use my knowledge of Arabic Numerals to get a job as a bookkeeper. This will provide an income, and if I do really well then I might find a place in the Highgarden Court. Now to use that poster I brought to start modernizing The Seven Kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TimJames said:

... good point. 

New Plan! I'd bring THIS poster, laminated to avoid water damage, and try to run away on foot. Semly shows us how easy it is for a man to hide in plain sight from people who want you dead, so sneaking out of Kings Landing shouldn't be too hard.

Once I'm out, I'll pretend to be a Begging Brother and beg my way from Kings Landing to Oldtown. Once there, I'll try to use my knowledge of Arabic Numerals to get a job as a bookkeeper. This will provide an income, and if I do really well then I might find a place in the Highgarden Court. Now to use that poster I brought to start modernizing The Seven Kingdoms.

That...is actually a really good plan :bowdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...