Willravel

I'm sorry you can't read my posts. AGAIN, the mase would have been used in the same way a gun, hopefully, would have been used. Pull out the weapon and aim it at someone. You don't fire, you just aim. That's a threat. It's not engaging someone, but it's the threat of massive pain and the loss of sight. That could have very easily made them think twice before approaching. I understand that mase is relatively ineffective in the open, though a straigh shot into the eyes is effective even in a hurricane, but the threat is where the power lies. Hold them back with the threat.
Who said anything about blame? I explained the cause of the behavior, not the blame. The blame lies with the individual, of course.

sasKuach

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.

Willravel

A gernade would probably be even scarier than a gun, why not carry gernades?
A shoulder mounted missile is a lot scarrier than a little gun, why not carry them? If you realyl want to scare the piss out of someone, aim a bazooka at them.
In OPINION, 3 cans of mace in those girls' purses wouldn't have done jack shit. In my opinion, it very easily been enough to deter them. Also, whos' to say that a gun would have saved these girls? I think that's making a very big assumption. What if one of the girls would have pulled a gun and shot and missed? What if one of the assailents grabbed the gun? Now we have armed assailents. It could have been even worse with guns.

dksuddeth

except made the unaffected part of the mob even angrier

ludicrous arguments that have no relevance.

I once asked one of my hometown police officers if having a gun against a group of thugs did any good, how would it work. He told me all you had to do was point it at one of them and empty the magazine in to him, the rest would scatter like a flock of pheasants. Sounds like good advice to me.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Actually, 'ludacrous' arguments are often the easiest to explain away. I wonder why you weren't able to counter-point my ascertion? Tell me, dksuddeth, are my ascertions so ludacrous that you cannot even respond to them?
Luckly, that police officer knows everything about everything, as he is in fact Sergeant Jesus Christ. Sounds like a good guess to me, but not much more. Did he really use the word, "pheasants"? That's phacinating!

dksuddeth

No, i'll respond.
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.

Well, I am from Northern Illinois where people do hunt, pheasants happen to be one of the things to hunt. I've seen a flock of pheasants take off. That alone can scare the crap out of you if you're not ready for it.
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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

Ah! So we should all be packing flocks of pheasants!

cj2112

This thread does not belong in Tilted Weaponry. This is NOT the place to debate gun control, it is the place to debate particular types of weapons, but NOT ownership of them.

debaser

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.

__________________

Willravel

Thank you for a response.
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?
Sorry, I was just trying to be funny. If I'm the only one that laughed, that's sad.
Interesting how their responses are reflections of you and I. I think it'd be interesting if in San Francisco a gun wasnt a wise choice but in Texas it was. Sort of an "I'm right here and you're right there" thing.

Willravel

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.

filtherton

The heavily armed populace would also have to know to go for the head. When zombies invade ammo is always way too scarce. One shot, one kill is a necessity.

The_Dunedan

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?

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

I imagine that hydrostatic shock only comes into signicance if it effects the physiology of the brain. Zombies keep trying to come at you until you destroy their ability to do so. Even if you destroy the body completely, a zombie head, sans body, is still a dangerous thing. The proper incapacitation of a zombie requires the destruction of the brain, so unless you shoot 'em in the head, you'll either do nothing, or just slow them down.

I personally recommend the Zombie Survival Guide. It's got everything you need to know about destroying romero-esque slow zombies.

The_Dunedan

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.