I thought I saw a Phalanx! Lethal R2-D2 for the win!
lol

So, I did a little reading; the Mark 38 has been through several upgrades---from the original 25 mm Bushmaster mount with no weather protection (on a naval ship? really?)---to the streamlined "big brother" mount we see now and 30 mm shells (sudden thought; is there ammunition interchangeability with the A-10's gun and if not; why not? lol)

There is, in fact, a deliberate "off-set" mode now introduced for firing warning shots---I guess you designate the target and set "off-set" so that you put shots across the bow/spray them with water? To avoid macerating a mere obvious idiot as opposed to someone who actually means you harm? Although there's no way to tell if that's what's going on here for sure...

Given the age and the steam gauges in the cockpit---this sort of like watching a locomotive being plug off the bow of a carrier.
Cool.
Thanks!

🤣 🏹

Bow chica wow

"Outrun my bow" Indeed.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Radioheads-Creep-in-Medieval-Style

I bow at the sight of his name.

I'm surprised that thing isn't just going airborne. Maybe it's the thing on the bow that is holding it down, fuel tank maybe?

Didn't see any obvious evidence of two technologies but I sort of assume they are there---
1) "Bubblers" under the bow to put air under the ice before the weight of the ship cracks it and pushes it aside (ice with air under it is easier to break)
2) bow design that take the weight of the ship up above and onto the ice to crush from above (complements #1)...

Touché. I bow to thee.

Thank you! I think I need to research this more because---lol--they want to make me do the experiment and didn't deliver the formula in a nice package with a bow on top!

I do love the way they've learned to bow. But this isn't really a joke, they are -incredibly- prolific and do a tremendous amount of damage to parks and greenbelts now that they have no predators thinning the herds.

Funny, but the robbers had axes. The owners had a defensible position and swords. Since this is known now, the robbers can bring bows and...soon you end back up with guns.

The only alternative to this is to disarm everyone, knowing the criminals will not obey, and hope that the 'safer' weapons the criminals do use will at least allow for a less wounded victim. This method also relies on the victim to capitulate completely in mortal fear.

Many might prefer the second method, I do not. Sadly, most nutjobs and criminals know that good targets can be found in any state, some much more than others but realistically any state is vulnerable.

Why? Because even in gun friendly states, 'gun free' zones exist. Nine times out of ten, that 'gun free' zone is going to be the target. You will hear stories that say "Oh, a person was shot at a gun range/show" or "Chris Kyle was killed with a friend at a gune range." What those stories leave out are the details, because the headline is what matters when you are pushing an agenda.

The gun range Chris Kyle was shot at is an outdoor one, the three men were alone and isolated. The mental one shot two men and fled. You will hardly read that, usually the image they want to present is that multiple other gun owners were standing around and did nothing.

You will see stories about people shot at other ranges or at gun shows. What they generally won't mention is that almost all of them are due to either a self wound (suicide) or an accidental shooting from poor handling.

I know I'm jumping back in the conversation a bit, but I'd say it's a journalist's job to ferret out the truth - something that's unfortunately both lacking and waning in the US. For the system to work as designed there should be an antagonistic relationship between the four branches of government (colloquially and importantly including the press), where each pulls against the other to make the whole system stronger. Once one (or, as it has been, three) bow to the executive - willingly or forced - corruption floods in.

The conversation - enlightning as it is - brought me back to the famous interview between Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard (https://videosift.com/video/Classic-Repeated-Question-Avoidance-By-A-Politician) where Paxman repeats the same question 12 times in 90 seconds to try to get a straight answer. This is respect for the office and disrespect for the man who shames it.