![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I dunno, but the threat of pain and loss of sight doesn't really stack up to being dead. I'd much rather be maced or stunned than be shot. By a huge margin. I've thought about letting some friends do it to me just to see what it's like. That's NOT the kind of deterent I want to present. If something sounds like fun to try, it's not enough to stop people.
We're reading your posts, Will, but I just can't think of a better way to put it than: condiments are not as scary as guns. That's why we need to use guns on criminals. I want to scare the bloody piss out of them. I want criminals scared to leave their holes. Mace will not do that. In fact, 3 cans of mace in those girls' purses wouldn't have done jack shit. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
1)Grenades are what the ATF classifies as DDs, or Destructive Devices, therefore they fall in to the category that requires a $200 tax stamp....on each grenade. No law abiding citizen is going to spend that kind of money on a grenade. 2) A grenade is not effective as a scare tactic if your primary goal is to survive the encounter. It's only effective as a 'denial' weapon....what I mean by that is if I'm surrounded, no gun/knife/stick or stone to use as a weapon, then I'm taking them out with me. 3) shoulder mounted missile? nuff said. Quote:
Also, it has been my experience that, depending on what state you're in, the answers you get from the street cops compared to the appointees (police chiefs, etc.) are totally different in nature. You tend to get the straight truth from street cops instead of the 'politically correct' answers from the chiefs or mayors. Again, that does depend on where you're at. I wouldn't expect to hear San Fran cops tell people that a gun is the best choice, but here in Texas, they do. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Look, all specious arguments aside, a gun is the best deterent to a violent crime.
It is a deterent in two ways: 1. If criminals know there are law abiding people carrying firearms, they are less likely to attempt blatent violent crimes to begin with. 2. Once in a situation there is absolutely nothing that imparts the same sense of immediacy and directness as a firearm pointed at you. |
Quote:
1) Yes, they are expensive, but you only need one (as you'll probably never use it), so it's acytually cheaper than a gun. 2) Gernades are much scarier than guns. Also, if you want to survive the encounter, why use a gun? If the other party has a gun, then you opening fire is the most likely way to getm them to shoot at you. 3) The idea is that if mase and tasers are kinda scarey, and guns are quite scarey, that a weapon that is terrifying and even more overkill would be even better. My point was that all you really want to have is what you need, no more. Why use a gun when mase is sufficent is equatable to why use a bazooka when a gun is sufficient? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm watching Dawn of the Dead on the Sci Fi channel (since when is horror science fiction?), and I've just realized that there is a reason to keep everyone armed: zombies. If, in the unlikely situation, zombies were to begin spreading their plague, the only way to keep them at bay, and thus to keep the world from being overrun, would be to have a heavely armed populace. The reason that the zombies are able to get such a foothold is that most people are not prepaed to deal with horrible, infected, flesh eating people that are very aggressive and very dangerous.
|
Quote:
|
A question; zombies are partially decomposed, which increases the % of their weight made up by liquids, but also degrades the ability of their bodies to hold that liquid in. So does this increase or decrease the effects of hydrostatic shock?
|
there is a crucial debate about this at the center of the immortal cinematic achievement "wild zero" featuring guitar wolf...while it is not framed in terms of hydrostatic shock, it nonetheless indicates that "dawn of the dead" is a necessary referencepoint when combatting zombie hoardes, and that not having seen it puts you at a considerable disadvantage.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
My big worry is Half Life 2 -fast- zombies! Hordes of shambling, mindless undead I can handle; my stepfather owns a gunshop, after all. Those fast fuckers are nasty, though!
You're probably right regarding hydrostatic shock vis-a-vis zombies...the spinal lining decays pretty quickly, so unless your zombie was less than a week or so old, hydrostatic shock elsewhere in the undead body prolly wouldn't have a workable effect on the brain. Another thing to consider; as the zombies are partially decayed, they'd be -really- flammable. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project