wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> what happened >> Gun War
        
(Message started by: grungy on Dec 15^th, 2006, 5:47pm)

Title: Gun War
Post by grungy on Dec 15^th, 2006, 5:47pm

A man who appears to be a plain clothes police officer (he has a badge, but no uniform) is aiming his firearm at another man wearing a trench coat and a hat. Several feet away and to the right of the man resembling an officer is a third man; he is shooting, and both the "officer" and the man in the trenchcoat are his targets. Then, storming in is a fourth person who charges up in the midst of all this (while the third man is shooting) and he is yelling and firing!

The most interesting thing is that there is only one person with a firearm, and he never fires it. The man who shoots the "officer" and the guy with the trenchcoat never had a weapon, and the fourth man who enters and begins firing doesn't either.

Yet, all in all 2 people are shot, but they remain unharmed, and no bullets are anywhere to be found.

What is going on?

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Sameer on Dec 15^th, 2006, 5:53pm

man wonderous things you can do with canons nowadays...

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by grungy on Dec 15^th, 2006, 6:11pm

Nope, sorry Sameer.

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by TheNumberScott on Dec 15^th, 2006, 7:16pm

Believe me, Sameer is right. You may have thought the wrong thing when you saw the word canon. They're not singing songs in a round.

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Sameer on Dec 15^th, 2006, 7:42pm

on 12/15/06 at 18:11:04, grungy wrote:

Nope, sorry Sameer.

really have you had a powershot from canons... they are awesome ;)

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Bamaboys on Dec 15^th, 2006, 8:02pm

Sounds like a blockbuster.

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by grungy on Dec 15^th, 2006, 8:18pm

I still don't understand Sameer's...

I can tell Bamaboys is right, though.

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by grungy on Dec 15^th, 2006, 8:18pm

Ohh... I get it, sorry. My first reaction is 'cannon', because so many people can't spell these days. Yes, Sameers is right.

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by cchris on Dec 15^th, 2006, 8:51pm

wow, I had to google canon before I got it. If you don't, try [hide]film from a mountain in Japan[/hide].

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Icarus on Dec 16^th, 2006, 10:25am

on 12/15/06 at 17:47:30, grungy wrote:

Yet, all in all 2 people are shot, but they remain unharmed, and no bullets are anywhere to be found.

So it was the third guy who was the target of the 4th's firing? At least, I hope it wasn't some old gaffer.
;)

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by mehtvi2 on Dec 27^th, 2006, 8:36pm

playing with water guns?

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Death on Dec 28^th, 2006, 5:57am

Just checking that all this isn't going over my head:

[hide]Both the officer and the man in the trench coat are flm actors, with the 3rd guy being the camera man. He is shooting a film. The 4th guy is the director? Although quite what he is firing I'm not too sure of - possibly some particularly noisy crew members. :-/[/hide]

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Icarus on Dec 29^th, 2006, 7:29am

That's it. Since only the 4 are mentioned, and the two who are shot are not harmed, I could only conclude that the [hide]director or producer fired the camera man[/hide].

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by TheNumberScott on Dec 30^th, 2006, 6:01pm

on 12/29/06 at 07:29:51, Icarus wrote:

That's it. Since only the 4 are mentioned, and the two who are shot are not harmed, I could only conclude that the [hide]director or producer fired the camera man[/hide].

[hide]I think the director could have fired all three. I think the harmed part refers to a physical harm. None of them would be physically harmed at all. [/hide]

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Icarus on Dec 31^st, 2006, 12:34pm

Having your livelyhood removed is harm. The puzzle does not limit itself to physical harm. Therefore they cannot have been fired!

(Or we can just admit that the riddle was never meant to be examined in this detail... :P)

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Grimbal on Jan 1^st, 2007, 8:44pm

on 12/30/06 at 18:01:12, TheNumberScott wrote:

I think the director could have fired all three.

There were shot with a firearm?

ok, forget about it. :-X

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Locke64 on Jan 5^th, 2007, 5:36pm

Without reading any replies, they were [hide]shooting a movie. The policeman without the uniform and the man in the trenchcoat and hat are in the scene being 'shot'. The third man is the cameraman. The fourth person is the director or something, and he is firing (laying off) someone/people.[/hide]

Did anyone else get it right before me? :)

yup. :(

Title: Re: Gun War
Post by Locke64 on Jan 5^th, 2007, 5:44pm

Sentence-by-sentence explanation:
[explanations are bolded and in parenthases (())]
[hide]A man who appears to be a plain clothes police officer (he has a badge, but no uniform) is aiming his firearm at another man wearing a trench coat and a hat. (two actors) Several feet away and to the right of the man resembling an officer is a third man (cameraman); he is shooting (a camera), and both the "officer" and the man in the trenchcoat are his targets.(cameramen are supposed to get footage of the actors...) Then, storming in is a fourth person (the director) who charges up in the midst of all this (while the third man is shooting(his camera)) and he is yelling and firing!(he is yelling "You're fired!" at some people.)[/hide]

[hide]The most interesting thing is that there is only one person with a firearm, and he never fires it.(the actor playing the "officer") The man who shoots the "officer" and the guy with the trenchcoat never had a weapon, (he had a camera) and the fourth man who enters and begins firing doesn't either.(Why would a director have a weapon?)[/hide]

[hide]Yet, all in all 2 people are shot, (the two actors, by the camera) but they remain unharmed, and no bullets are anywhere to be found. (because no one was shot by a firearm)[/hide]