Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GiglameshDespair]

If attacked by the Witch from left 4 dead, hand her a smartphone and leg it while she trys and fails to take picture. A flawless plan.

[Loud Whispers]

If attacked by the Witch from left 4 dead, hand her a smartphone and leg it while she trys and fails to take picture. A flawless plan.

Why would you give a depressed zombie with no reason to sleep a smartphone? Suddenly, the internet is destroyed under an eternal flood of selfies fished for compliments; DEAR GOD WOMAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!

[aenri]

Have it only work on patriarchal large cell phones.

That is so stupid that I can't tell if it's satire or not.

Poe's law, eh?

[Graknorke]

I was looking up Derringers (because seriously I know not much about guns and I probably should know more). Anyway, I found one site that reviews guns (it was gunsandammo, but my not-americanness meant I didn't recognise it immediately), and they had a review of a gun kind of like a Derringer but with a bigger grip. Anyway, they had written:
"Two shots are simply not enough for a primary [self defence] weapon."

Where is anyone ever going to be where they need to shoot somebody to defend themselves and two shots isn't enough? If it ever came to a situation like that (and I imagine it rarely does), why would your plan be anything but to shoot at the person once and GTFO?

[Flying Dice]

Have it only work on patriarchal large cell phones.

That is so stupid that I can't tell if it's satire or not.

Poe's law, eh?

SJWs are perhaps the ultimate evolution of Poe's Law. :/

[lemon10]

I was looking up Derringers (because seriously I know not much about guns and I probably should know more). Anyway, I found one site that reviews guns (it was gunsandammo, but my not-americanness meant I didn't recognise it immediately), and they had a review of a gun kind of like a Derringer but with a bigger grip. Anyway, they had written:
"Two shots are simply not enough for a primary [self defence] weapon."

Where is anyone ever going to be where they need to shoot somebody to defend themselves and two shots isn't enough? If it ever came to a situation like that (and I imagine it rarely does), why would your plan be anything but to shoot at the person once and GTFO?

If you got ambushed on the street by a pack of wild bears. Two shots from a tiny derringer would have trouble taking down even a single bear. But dozens? A true red blooded AMERICAN would obviously be properly prepared for this circumstance, either armed with multiple shotguns, or proper assault weapons.
Now, I understand that you aren't AMERICAN, so you don't understand the dangers of living in AMERICA (of which roving gangs of bears are just one of the multitudes of threats), but believe me when I tell you that a simple derringer would be woefully insufficient for self defense here.

[Owlbread]

They're actually not just being macho. They are privately acknowledging the fact that if they had to shoot an attacker, there is a very good chance that they will miss because of their own fear, shaking hands, adrenaline etc. It is very unwise to rely on two shots in a situation like that.

Though I am in no way an expert, far from it, from what I have heard the most sensible self defence weapons for situations like that would be something like a glock 19 if you were attacked while going about your business, or a semi automatic rifle if attacked at home, preferably something in 5.56 or .223 so it doesn't damage your house too much. Again, it should have a reasonably sized magazine for all the reasons we've already talked about. As Helgoland mentions suppressive fire could be extremely useful in a situation like that (if you can scare the attacker off or keep him at bay while someone calls the police, or while you get away) so 10 rounds may not be enough, especially if there is more than one attacker. That means the home defence gun would probably be an AR-15 with more than 10 rounds in the magazine. The issue there though of course is that it would depend on whether you were fighting your attacker in a very confined space, all those bullets could wreak havoc and they will still over-penetrate. Nothing is perfect. Another good idea would be a .20 gauge shotgun. 

[Helgoland]

Also the possible need for suppressive fire, issues with stopping power, not hitting the right spots... If you're going to carry a weapon, carry a proper one.

[GiglameshDespair]

If attacked by the Witch from left 4 dead, hand her a smartphone and leg it while she trys and fails to take picture. A flawless plan.

Why would you give a depressed zombie with no reason to sleep a smartphone? Suddenly, the internet is destroyed under an eternal flood of selfies fished for compliments; DEAR GOD WOMAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!

Well, at least she doesn't turn herself orange with fake tan, i guess.

DEAR GOD WOMAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!

HAng on a second.

DEAR GOD WOMAN

¬.¬

Are you saying that to the witch or to me? Because I'm at least 95% certain I'm not a woman.

[Hanslanda]

If attacked by the Witch from left 4 dead, hand her a smartphone and leg it while she trys and fails to take picture. A flawless plan.

Why would you give a depressed zombie with no reason to sleep a smartphone? Suddenly, the internet is destroyed under an eternal flood of selfies fished for compliments; DEAR GOD WOMAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!

Well, at least she doesn't turn herself orange with fake tan, i guess.

DEAR GOD WOMAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!

HAng on a second.

DEAR GOD WOMAN

¬.¬

Are you saying that to the witch or to me? Because I'm at least 95% certain I'm not a woman.

This is the internet, no one knows the gender of anyone else unless told.

[GiglameshDespair]

It says it on my profile, and I think it'd normally be safer to assume an unknown user is male. Accuse me of stereotyping but I'd be willing to bet over 50% of dwarf fortress players are male.

[Lord Shonus]

I was looking up Derringers (because seriously I know not much about guns and I probably should know more). Anyway, I found one site that reviews guns (it was gunsandammo, but my not-americanness meant I didn't recognise it immediately), and they had a review of a gun kind of like a Derringer but with a bigger grip. Anyway, they had written:
"Two shots are simply not enough for a primary [self defence] weapon."

Where is anyone ever going to be where they need to shoot somebody to defend themselves and two shots isn't enough? If it ever came to a situation like that (and I imagine it rarely does), why would your plan be anything but to shoot at the person once and GTFO?

Real life isn't the movies. There's no such thing as an Instant Death Bullet unless you're using something rediculously large such as a .50 BMG or 20mm cannon. In other words, bigger than anything you're going to be carrying. There have been cases where individuals who aren't even on any kind of drug (which can worsen the problem by deadening pain and reducing logical thought) took multiple hits from police-issue 9mm or .38 special pistols and didn't go down until after they had severely injured the officer in question. There are many documented cases in wartime of people falling over dead an hour after a battle because they didn't even know they were hit (or believed it to be a minor wound). Getting hit with a smaller caliber bullet is only guaranteed to stop you quick if you get hit in an extremely vital spot such as the brain or spinal cord. Even a heart hit may not stop the attacker. It does no good to shoot someone if they don't bleed out until after they've already killed you. THat is why self-defense classes always include some variation on "Once you have drawn your weapon you have committed to using deadly force. Once you start shooting, keep shooting until the target stops moving. Reload if you have to."

As for running away, that's rarely an option, as most of the time you will have already exhausted that option before shooting. In such a case, shooting only makes your situation more dangerous because a wounded attacker is more likely to respond irrationally.

[Eric Blank]

We CAN actually be assaulted by packs of vicious wild bears. With guns. They're called gangsters, hate groups and drug dealers, and we have plenty of them. It's good to have something more than two shots available if they decide they want to kill you for whatever reason.

[Flying Dice]

A drug dealer would have no reason to randomly attack someone they didn't know. That's just more risk for them, for no appreciable benefit; they don't need the contents of your wallet, and an assault/murder is much more likely to bring them down than selling. If you ripped them off, on the other hand...

[Hanslanda]

A drug dealer would have no reason to randomly attack someone they didn't know. That's just more risk for them, for no appreciable benefit; they don't need the contents of your wallet, and an assault/murder is much more likely to bring them down than selling. If you ripped them off, on the other hand...

See, there you go. Thinking that drug addled psychopaths with guns actually are rational. I've met them. Protip: They're not.