4 ms·

A bunch of people who misunderstand desperate people are down voting you. Downvoting because people are putting their head in the sand. We live in a society of

A bunch of people who misunderstand desperate people are down voting you. Downvoting because people are putting their head in the sand. We live in a society of "just in time" production and shipping. How much food do people have stored up?

411111111111111 7y ago
Ok, let's think this through. You buy a weapon and try to intimidate the armed aggressors with your weapon. They actually know how to handle weapons and shoot you as soon as they see your weapon because they know how dangerous these things are. You're now shot and are either dead or currently bleeding out. How did this improve your situation exactly? Escalating conflict is not necessary in your favor. It can be, but its way more likely to backfire than help you
- mirimir 7y ago
  > They actually know how to handle weapons and shoot you as soon as they see your weapon because they know how dangerous these things are. Yes, that's exactly it. It's actually quite hard to train people to freely kill others. Most naive people think about using guns for intimidation. The first lesson in my weapons class (as I recall) was to never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Maybe the second lesson was to point and shoot as an uninterrupted process. Not any faster than you can do smoothly, but not any slower either. Burroughs, who was quite the gun nut, also recommended that. He also advised to first take out assailants with shotguns. There's a great anecdote in Hunter Thompson's book about hanging with Hell's Angels. Involving a guy who pointed a handgun at one of them, and got shot with it. Also a great sequence in some Seagal film with an Aikido reverse move with an assailant's shotgun. It's a riff on a sword move.
- setr 7y ago
  Presumably a large portion of "armed looters" you'd expect in a public unrest situation are also untrained. Trained > untrained Untrained gun > no gun No gun == no gun
  - mirimir 7y ago
    > No gun == no gun Re guns, sure. Generally, no.

411111111111111 7y ago

Ok, let's think this through. You buy a weapon and try to intimidate the armed aggressors with your weapon. They actually know how to handle weapons and shoot you as soon as they see your weapon because they know how dangerous these things are. You're now shot and are either dead or currently bleeding out. How did this improve your situation exactly? Escalating conflict is not necessary in your favor. It can be, but its way more likely to backfire than help you

mirimir 7y ago
> They actually know how to handle weapons and shoot you as soon as they see your weapon because they know how dangerous these things are. Yes, that's exactly it. It's actually quite hard to train people to freely kill others. Most naive people think about using guns for intimidation. The first lesson in my weapons class (as I recall) was to never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Maybe the second lesson was to point and shoot as an uninterrupted process. Not any faster than you can do smoothly, but not any slower either. Burroughs, who was quite the gun nut, also recommended that. He also advised to first take out assailants with shotguns. There's a great anecdote in Hunter Thompson's book about hanging with Hell's Angels. Involving a guy who pointed a handgun at one of them, and got shot with it. Also a great sequence in some Seagal film with an Aikido reverse move with an assailant's shotgun. It's a riff on a sword move.
setr 7y ago
Presumably a large portion of "armed looters" you'd expect in a public unrest situation are also untrained. Trained > untrained Untrained gun > no gun No gun == no gun
- mirimir 7y ago
  > No gun == no gun Re guns, sure. Generally, no.