Forum: Author Hangout

A serial is very specifically a way to publish, which is piece by piece on a regular schedule rather than all at once.

That seems to jibe with what I remember as a kid, when on Saturdays we saw "Superman" serial every week, a different episode, always ending in a cliffhanger, in black-and-white, starring Kirk Alyn as superman. (His opponent one week was Iron Man - not Robert Downey Jr.) Noel Neill played Lois Lane. This was before the Superman series (is that the right word?) on television, which also came on once a week. I don't know why one would be a serial and the other a series, since both were weekly.

A serial is not made up of complete stories. Instead, it's more common for a serial to end with a cliffhanger. In theory, each episode in a tv series is a complete story arc. Soap operas are serials, tho.

Actually, there's a very simple definition of an assault weapon. Can it fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Wrong. "Can it fire more than one round per trigger pull?" is the definition for a different term, "assault rifle", which is a military term of art.

"Assault weapon" is a term invented by gun control advocates and has no relationship in either origin or meaning with "assault rifle".

... well, bless your heart, you're doing the best you can.

LMMFAO...gotta love Southernisms.

I'll have to disagree with you there. I know you're describing the military definition, but even it's not correct.

First, anything can be a weapon. Second, an assault is an attack on a person or thing. It's the action that turns any item into an assault weapon.

If I crack a skull open with a shovel, or garrote them with piano wire, the shovel and wire become assault weapons, no firearm required.

I'll have to disagree with you there. I know you're describing the military definition, but even it's not correct.

The military term is assault rifle, not assault weapon.

Second, an assault is an attack on a person or thing.

Assault means something a bit different in military terms.

You must have missed the part where I was replying to the term "assault weapon."

Anything can be a weapon, no firearm is required in that.

You must have missed the part where I was replying to the term "assault weapon."

You said:

I know you're describing the military definition, but even it's not correct.

There is no military definition for "assault weapon"

The term the military uses is "assault rifle"

Second, an assault is an attack on a person or thing.

That's true, if you are in a jurisdiction where the law doesn't treat assault and battery as separate crimes.

If you are in a jurisdiction where the law separates the two:

Assault is threatening the use of force/violence.

Battery is the actual use of force/violence.

If I wave a hammer at you and threaten to whack you with it, that's assault.

If I actually hit you with the hammer that's battery.

Nope. 'Assault rifle' is defined by function. 'Assault weapon' is defined by appearance.

What you just described is a machine gun, a submachine gun, or an automatic rifle. No civilian weapon can fire more than 1 round in a trigger pull, those are all illegal.

That's not entirely true. A class III NFA stamp can be obtained by civilians that allows them to possess automatic weapons.

hat's not entirely true. A class III NFA stamp can be obtained by civilians that allows them to possess automatic weapons.

Only if they were manufactured a long enough time ago... the result of that particular policy being, essentially "well, we can't constitutionally ban them outright, but in a hundred years or so, there shouldn't be any left"

Only if they were manufactured a long enough time ago

1986 was the last year for new manufacture to be specific. Which is why I qualified the statement with "not entirely true."

Only a handful of states allow you to even get a Class III.

A class III NFA stamp is federal. The states have no say in who can get one.

That said, a class III NFA stamp wouldn't allow you to ignore/violate state law restrictions on specific types of firearms.

Yea, and good luck with that. Only a handful of states allow you to even get a Class III. And the requirements are a mile long.

Might as well talk about people just going out and buying tanks or F-15 fighters.

You have a flair for BS comparisons. There is no state in the SE outside Virginia that doesn't allow it. The majority of the Midwest and Southwest does as well. I still have my father's Thompson along with the silencer, both of which are legally held with NFA stamps. You don't have a clue on this subject apparently.

Even with a Class III, you can not own a silencer.

You can own both, but each required a separate stamp.

Yes, the majority of states (numerically) do in fact allow it. I'm unclear regarding Vermont and New Hamshire's current status, but last I checked, they were the only Northeast states that still allowed it. I believe Maine stopped around 2010. But yes, numerically speaking, the majority of states do allow it.

Edited to add:

It dawned on me after posting, that you believed silencers were illegal. They are not. They do however fall under the NFA, along with short barreled shotguns, pistols with stocks on them, and other things.

It would be wise to look those things up as your California influence is speaking.

But damned hard to find a legal one to fit on a nagging spouse.

https://www.amazon.com/Gag-Ball-for-Women-Mushy/dp/B08M6F31TH/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=ball+gag&qid=1605318319&sr=8-7

The AR15 is the civilian version of the M-16/M-4. Meaning the lower receiver, where the selector switch is, only goes from safe to semi. AR, by the way, stands for Armalite Rifle - the name of the original weapon makers.

Technically, the M-16 and M-4 are military versions of the AR15. Armalite created the original AR15 first, then tried to sell it to the Pentagon but the Pentagon didn't want it. The Kennedy adminstration took the AR15 platform design and created the M-16 from it.

Arnold can walk around and fire a chaingun

I assume this is a reference to the original Predator movie. IIRC: It wasn't Arnold's character that carried used the unmounted minigun.

Okay, I forgot he had the minigun in the second Terminator movie.

If there is a universally accepted definition to them, I've yet to find them.

I think there is for saga, if you are willing to accept a fairly abstract definition. If you insist on specifying hard word count boundaries, then no.

A saga is a really long, epic, story.

It could be published as one supersized novel (Battlefield Earth), or it could be published as a series of smaller books with a single plot stretching across multiple books.

Generally a novel is seen as 40,000 to 100,000 words, and a saga is seen as 150,000 plus words - although some insist it's 250,000 plus words.

That's going to be highly dependent on genre. 100k Words is close to the average size for Science Fiction and High Fantasy novels, so calling 150K a saga doesn't work in those genres.

Average novel size varies significantly with genre. I would put the lower end cut-off for a saga at double the average size for the genre.

Was somebody talking about morons? Is that people who feel the need to turn every conversation into how big their gun is and how fast it can shoot? You call that a gun? THIS is a gun!

↑✉︎
StarFleet Carl
11/12/2020, 2:43:22 PM

@bk69

Well, it's sorta like the morons behind the gun control movement talking about 'assault weapons'. There's no such thing, or at least there's no real definition.

Actually, there's a very simple definition of an assault weapon. Can it fire more than one round per trigger pull? If so, then it's an assault weapon. Three round burst selector switches, or fully automatic capable makes it, BY DEFINITION, an assault weapon.
Replies: Dominions Son Remus2
↑✉︎
Dominions Son
11/12/2020, 2:48:38 PM

@StarFleet Carl

Actually, there's a very simple definition of an assault weapon. Can it fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Wrong. "Can it fire more than one round per trigger pull?" is the definition for a different term, "assault rifle", which is a military term of art.

"Assault weapon" is a term invented by gun control advocates and has no relationship in either origin or meaning with "assault rifle".
↑✉︎
Remus2
11/12/2020, 2:52:49 PM

@StarFleet Carl

I'll have to disagree with you there. I know you're describing the military definition, but even it's not correct.

First, anything can be a weapon. Second, an assault is an attack on a person or thing. It's the action that turns any item into an assault weapon.

If I crack a skull open with a shovel, or garrote them with piano wire, the shovel and wire become assault weapons, no firearm required.
Replies: Dominions Son
↑✉︎
Dominions Son
11/12/2020, 3:00:02 PM

@Remus2

I'll have to disagree with you there. I know you're describing the military definition, but even it's not correct.

The military term is assault rifle, not assault weapon.

Second, an assault is an attack on a person or thing.

Assault means something a bit different in military terms.
↑✉︎
Switch Blayde
11/12/2020, 3:04:45 PM

Assault weapon/assault rifle — semantics.

They want to ban weaponry that can do mass damage in a short period of time, like a machine gun or a high capacity magazine.

Was somebody talking about morons? Is that people who feel the need to turn every conversation into how big their gun is and how fast it can shoot? You call that a gun? THIS is a gun!

I referred primarily to the terms assault and weapon. Neither of which require a firearm to be in use. Further, are you calling everyone who has commented a moron? If that's what your intent was, say it loud and proud, don't dance around the subject like a politician would.

Trucks, cars, planes, rocks, hammers, bombs, blades, ball bats, molotov cocktails, lasers, ad nauseam, have all been used to "assault" people. The morons that came up with the AWB, and everyone that continues to push for it again, seems to forget or conveniently ignore those 'other' assault weapons.

The morons that came up with the AWB, and everyone that continues to push for it again, seems to forget or conveniently ignore those 'other' assault weapons.

They also, in pushing the AWB as a solution to mass shootings, defined "mass shooting" as any shooting with 4 (yes, just 4) or more casualties.

Someone who can shoot worth a damn could manage that with a decent revolver.

Faced with victims who have been taught to cower and wait for the "authorities" rather than trying to fight back, it could be done with a muzzle loading rifle.

They also, in pushing the AWB as a solution to mass shootings, defined "mass shooting" as any shooting with 4 (yes, just 4) or more casualties.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout had fewer than four casualties, didn't it? The two perps only took down the one cop, right? (Oh. Just checked. Apparently their aim was slightly better. They actually hit eight of the three hundred targets they shot at.)

I have one of these.
https://www.crosman.com/airguns/benjamin-airguns/bulldog-realtreer-xtra

I doesn't even need to be a firearm to qualify under that silly definition.

I have one of these.
https://www.crosman.com/airguns/benjamin-airguns/bulldog-realtreer-xtra

If you are going to go there, I like this one: https://www.crosman.com/airguns/airbow/pioneer-airbow

https://www.ek-archery.com/product/1/118

If you're going that route, the above pump action repeating crossbow would be a better option imo.

If you're going that route, the above pump action repeating crossbow would be a better option imo.

Depends on what for. The airbow fires longer heavier pojectiles at 66% higher velocity and it's not going to take that much longer to reload.

The crossbow has a 130 draw. That's going to be a pretty rough pull trying to pump it like a shotgun while keeping it on target.

The crossbow has a 130 draw.

Is that a lot? Can it be operated by a 14-year-old girl of less than 100 pounds?

Is that a lot?

130 pounds, no, it's not a lot for a modern cross bow, but it would be way heavier than most normal bows. In a normal cross bow, you'd be using a toe loop and two hands to pull that.

Basically drawing that cross bow would be the equivalent of lifting a 130 pound weight.

Unless the hand pump is driving some kind of concealed winch, and you have to pump it several times to recock the cross bow once, I don't see a 100 pound girl being able to work it.

Unfortunately the manufacturer's web sight didn't have a good description of how it worked or a video showing it.

I'd assume a ratcheting action allowing each pump to be less than a hundred pounds of force. Which isn't great either - I'd prefer a straight pull, so it doesn't take as long.

If you're going that route, the above pump action repeating crossbow would be a better option imo.

Does this require batteries or other outside power? If not, does it take a big guy to operate it?

If you're going that route, the above pump action repeating crossbow would be a better option imo.

I found a link to a pdf for the owner's manual.

https://www.ek-archery.com/archive/catalog/item/ADDER%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E%E6%9B%B8.pdf

It's not actually a pump action, like on a pump action shotgun (or rifle and yes there are pump action rifles).

It's a really long cocking lever that goes from the front of the cross bow all the way back to the pistol grip. To cock it you need to hold the lever. where it would meet the pistol grip in firing position and push it down and forward.

And yes, it probably takes a good bit of upper body strength to cock that thing even with the lever.

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. " ― Archimedes

I don't own one (yet), but I have shot one. My wife is 5'4" and had little problem working it. It was more awkward than physically hard to work according to her.

https://www.crosman.com/airguns/benjamin-airguns/bulldog-realtreer-xtra

I like how that Realthee Xtra logo make stylized deer horns look like bustier.

Someone who can shoot worth a damn could manage that with a decent revolver.

Double barrel 10-gauge would work, if the four people were standing close enough to each other.

Actually, since 'casualty' just means injured, a double barrel 12 gauge with birdshot would probably be enough, just firing both barrels.

But the 'assault weapon' definition was based on weapon appearance - collapsible stock, pistol grip, muzzle break, flash suppressor, or rail system, any 2 of which qualifies a weapon as a 'assault weapon' even if it fires .22LR

Double barrel 10-gauge would work, if the four people were standing close enough to each other.

The best bet for mass casualties with a firearm in a target rich confined space is a shot gun.

True. I was talking break-action, no reloading needed.

You really want to take out large numbers, a SPAS-12 or Saiga would be my choice.

No. They want to ban all guns. They just take a incremental approach because it's easiest to con the general public with a slow con.

lot MORE damage than an AR-15.

From what distance, please? The same 50 yards as the rifle?

A well trained individual can reload a 6 round revolver just as quickly as somebody else with a semi-automatic pistol.

I don't know if there are any revolvers that support this today, but the early colt revolvers that were loaded with loose black power and lead balls had removable cylinders and you could get extra cylinders and swap them out like a magazine in a modern semi-auto.

You can buy (or make) speed-loaders for basically any revolver. Thin clip of metal holds all the bullets in formation, and flip the cylinder, dump empty brass, pop in multiple rounds in one move.

You can buy (or make) speed-loaders for basically any revolver.

I know what a speed loader for a revolver is and how it works.

What I was referring to is something different. Extra preloaded cylinders and swapping cylinders like you would magazines in the semi-auto.

The Colt revolvers had this in the days before metal cartridges, I don't know if any modern revolvers allow that.

ETA: The advantage of a cylinder swap with a modern revolver would be that you don't have to dump the spent casings and collect the loose casings.

A high capacity magazine was included.

So, i can just belt feed an air pump BB gun hooked to a compressor and I'm good, legally in your opinion? Good to know.

BTW, where is your neighborhood?

JK...no, really, I wouldn't do that...But as has been stated previously, ANYTHING can be a weapon. Even a weapon of mass destruction. Putting arbitrary restrictions based on perceptions and ill conceived notions just makes sick people just get more creative.

Timothy McVeigh anyone?

People here said there is no such thing as an assault weapon

That's not what was said. What was said was that an "assault weapon" is not the same thing as an "assault rifle"

The former is a term coined by gun control advocates and is defined on largely cosmetic factors that have little or no effect on the lethality of the weapon.

And no, a higher capacity magazine does not make a semi-auto firearm more lethal.

The later term is a military term that has a very specific definition based on functional factors of the weapons operation.

Guns are what the field artillery uses.

"This is my rifle, that is my gun, this is for fighting, that is for fun." Men carry a "gun" between their legs.

including perhaps the most well known 'boobk of books' the Bible.

It should be noted that the Bible was originally a bunch of books, pamphlets, and letters that were all "published" and distributed separately.

The Bible was first published as a single volume in 400AD.

The Bible was first published as a single volume in 400AD.

Is it still the highest-selling work of fiction of all time?

The oldest parts of the Talmud, or "Old Testament" were first compiled over 900 years before that, in around 500 BCE.

As a single volume in a form that would be recognized as a book today?

My understanding is that in 500 BCE, a copy of the Talmud would have consisted of dozens of scrolls.

That's trying to define a 'book' by the technical ability to create thin paper and bind it together.

No, I'm defining "book" for this purpose as a single physical volume.

If the complete Talmud existed in 500 BCE as a single scroll, I would count that, but my understanding is that is not the case.

The list of books (the 'canon') is a technology-free way to define it.

For the Christian Bible, that was established in 325AD by the Council of Nicea, 75 years before the Bible was first published as a single volume.

I'm not sure how often it happens today, but it used to be common practice for publishers to take stories originally published as discrete physical books and lump them together in a single doorstop.

There's a word for that, anthology, and yes, it still happens quite a bit.

There's a word for that, anthology, and yes, it still happens quite a bit.

Anthology, Collection, or Omnibus depending on the contents and/or author(s) of the books.

I get the impression that nowadays it's far more common for publishers to keep the books as discrete entities but put them in a cardboard box and call it a box set.

Most dead tree anthologies are short stories or novellas that were originally published (if at all) in fanzines or similar formats and were never available as separate books.

Yes, anthologies made up of a series of full length novels bound in a single volume are rare if they exist at all.

I have a couple of relatively recent anthologies that are sets of two or three novellas from different authors with similar themes in a common genre that were published for the first time in anthology form.

I suppose the Christian Bible and The Complete Works of Shakespeare qualify as anthologies since each had more than one author

Having more than one author, while a common feature of anthologies, is not a requirement.

The main thing is it's not common to see full length novels compiled into an anthology. Short stories and novellas yes, but it's almost never done with full length novels.

See for example,The Complete Sherlock Holmes for an anthology of short stories all by one author.

https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Sherlock-Holmes-ARTHUR-author/dp/1435167902/ref=asc_df_1435167902/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=316997822370&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14304091439776026677&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9018805&hvtargid=pla-523676473336&psc=1

Yes, anthologies made up of a series of full length novels bound in a single volume are rare if they exist at all.

I have the single volume version of Zalazny's Amber Chronicles...

I have the single volume version of Zalazny's Amber Chronicles...

Well, okay, there's at least one out there. :)

I kind of looked it up. I didn't find a single voulume copy, but that's 10, maybe 14 full length novels in one bound volume?

Do you need a forklift to move it around?

No... but then, I never bothered with mechanical help to move tractor weights around either.

No, it wasn't. The council recognized what was already being done by the churches. A very different thing altogether.

The Council of Nicea was organized because there were several different lists and disputes over what should/should not be included. Disputes that were getting into accusations of heresy.

Disputes that were getting into accusations of heresy.

Which lead to a whole lot of people being killed for "heresy" and many more literally being run out of town.

"heresy"

Don't they manufacture chocolate candy bars?

Don't they manufacture chocolate candy bars?

No, that would be the lesbian feminist activist: Her-She.

As for what to call them, I have seen books which call their own subsections 'books',

Traditionally, when one story is too long to physically bind as a single book, it's divided in parts and sold as [$BOOKNAME]Vol.[$NUMBER]