Acid? Yeah, that would be my choice of weapon too.
Comes in handy if you're up against someone with a potion of ageing or a poultice of decay.
Still way inferior to a gun. Nothing really comes close. Broadsword? It would be easy to run away from someone that wields it. Crossbow? One shot and you would be very vulnerable until you reloaded.
A repeating hand crossbow is just about as effective as a gun at close range. More so if the target is wearing kevlar. Guns aren't the only tools of effective killing at range.
I'd wager a bet most people here (that don't live in terrible crime ridden areas, hence, most people here) have *never* actually witnessed a firearm brandished by some stranger with an intent to harm anyone.
Just a news search for the term "held at knifepoint" reveals an endless string of reports of criminals doing just that to one or several people. Only in the imagination of internet nerds do people morph into Bruce Lee and fight off an aggressor with a knife they're threatening to sink into your vitals rather than comply with being robbed or whatever else said aggressor demands.
But by all means... back to anti-gun fantasyland.
Only in the world of real life losers with small dicks do efficient killing machines get drooled over and obsessed with.
Unfortunately I did I wish I hadn't. All I'm saying is that a gun has such an unparalleled effectiveness in killing people that comparisons to crude weapons such as a knife are moot. It's like comparing an abacus to a computer.
Handguns aren't all that effective at killing people actually, at least in the U.S. According to statistics, 6/7 handgun shot victims survive. Handguns aren't really much more deadly than knives, they just have a little longer range and don't require physically overpowering the opponent (which is the major advantage for self defense for women/against multiple attackers).
Yup. A handgun is the perfect defensive tool, but not really the best offensive tool.
Today 04:17 PM
Honestly I don't know who you are referring to.Still can't believe that modern progressives are more willing to blame the tool than the rapist.
heh, it's debatable.
With a knife against 2 people isn't as easy. You need to put it to someone's throat first to become a credible threat and force them to do stuff.
With a gun he could just walk up to them and point it at them to get in control. Do that with a knife and the victims may just run away, or wrestle.
actually a knife is much more effective in close quarters than a gun against more than one person.
You have to know what you are doing of course, but it's pretty damn hard not to get cut at least semi-bad when defending against a knife that someone knows how to use.
You have a much better chance at avoiding being shot.
At a distance, then the gun comes way more effective.
Handguns aren't all that effective at killing people actually, at least in the U.S. According to statistics, 6/7 handgun shot victims survive. Handguns aren't really much more deadly than knives, they just have a little longer range and don't require physically overpowering the opponent (which is the major advantage for self defense for women/against multiple attackers).
Handguns are not that effective at killing people?
You probably meant that people not properly trained at killing people using handguns aren't all that effective at killing people using handguns.
You could also say people who aren't properly trained at killing people using knives aren't all that effective at killing people using knives.
You see what all the time?Unfortunately I see it all the time. No one can open carry here unless they are on active duty but most of the things that the police does is meant to harm ordinary citizens, usually they give tickets for petty transgression because statistics is all they, or rather their superiors, care about... They have to reach a certain quota or else they won't receive a bonus or worse. That's a pathological system that sacrifices public safety on the altar of profits. It encourages the police to fish for easy tickets instead of actually doing their job. But all of that is moot because you meant intent to harm someone with a gun, didn't you?
You see what all the time?
Police with guns or ordinary citizens with guns?
I'm honestly curious cause I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.
If you're saying police (the state) behaves more violently and aggressive when they're the only ones armed you wouldn't exactly be mounting an anti-gun argument. Just the opposite in fact.
You see what all the time?
Police with guns or ordinary citizens with guns?
I'm honestly curious cause I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.
If you're saying police (the state) behaves more violently and aggressive when they're the only ones armed you wouldn't exactly be mounting an anti-gun argument. Just the opposite in fact.
That's what's hilarious about the gun grabbers... The majority of their arguments are actually pro-gun when you look at hard facts and details.
You're points are contradictions though.I wrote that only police can open carry so it stands to reason that it's the police that I see brandishing their weapons. It was a vaguely related rant against the police, I thought that was clear. The police is less violent not more when the population is largely unarmed. The reason for that is clear. They don't fear for their life nearly as much because no one is shooting at them. Well, to be fair gun fights still happen but they are very rare and usually it's the SWAT equivalent that engages criminals with guns over here.
ps. I wasn't trying to make an anti-gun argument.
They got held up by the guy with the gun. The gun here was the cause of the problem. I'm not sure how this would help the pro-gun cause.