• cornshark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can someone eli5 why it would be so self evident that “no argument is ever required as to the need of a revolver at home, at the office, when traveling”?? They say it like it’s apparent. Maybe at home you’re worried about burglary, but what’s going on at the office?

    • loaExMachina
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      The demonstration is trivial, and is left as an exercise to the reader.

    • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      /s for those meetings that could have been emails

      un/s I think the point was more so that conflicts can arise anywhere, and maybe rule of 3s. With them invoking an always be prepared mindset.

      re/s Also a lot of people really don’t like their boss. Which is a selling point for employees and employers.

    • Lung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Of course it’s apparent, this is America 120 years ago. You don’t leave your house without your blazer, pipe, trench lighter, bowler hat, revolver, and buttplug (which is also a gun)

    • EmoDuck
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      1904 saw a lot of 30 to 50 wild hogs problems

    • Zloubida@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you don’t know how to justify something, or don’t have the time/the room to, just say its self-explanatory.

    • fibojoly
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Things only US citizens will understand…

  • sazey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    $175 in today’s dollars (+ $17 for every inch on the barrel) sounds like a sweet deal to me, or $210 for hamerless version.

      • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Hammerless was/is used to refer to revolvers without a exposed hammer to snag on things. Basically so you can take it out of you pocket faster. It would still technically have a hammer. Although other firearms designs use a striker mechanism instead of a traditional hammer.

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Of interest to me…

    • No mention of caliber. That would be somewhat unusual when advertising a specific model today.

    • “Bbl” abbreviation for “barrel”. I thought that was a modern boomer misabbreviation but apparently it is very old.