imported post
swine wrote:
Sorry, what's ROTFLOL mean? I guess the LOL part meants 'laugh out lout' but what's the ROTF part? Is it 'dirty'?
There are glaring and obvious problems with your assessment of the situation, and without trying to be insulting, it is enormously apparent you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
To fill you in, ROTFLOL is an acronym;
Rolling
on
the
floor
laughing
out
loud
You see why the acronym has its uses online. That's quite a bit to type to express comical response to oft hysterical statements.
Swine. I wish you the best with your project. I hope it meets great financial success, and has a positive impact on society. Perhaps it can be more meaningful to carry than pepper spray, or tasers. After all, pepper spray can be acclimated to, and tasers/stunguns require you to practically be in distance to hug your attacker.
Life is not always so nice.
Your entire positioning throughout the thread has been one wherein you express your concern for your children. Swine, you are not the only one who has ever expressed concern for children.
I have a daughter, and I love her more than anything I can think of in this world. That is why I have firearms in my home. That is why once she is able, I will fully involve her in my shooting activities. This helps assuage and placate curiosity that would arise out of, and be driven by, daddies "secrecy" surrounding firearms, were I to choose not to involve her whatsoever. It helps to avoid instances like your own, where a child unfamiliar with a dangerous item, pulls it out and plays with it like a Tonka dump truck.
It worked for me.
My father took me out to fire his .30-30, SKS, and other varying assorted rifles and shotguns we had through the years. He did the same with my sisters.
Perhaps my father understood the importance of this in this regard, as when he was 8 years old, he stuck his finger in the tip of a buddies fathers .22 revolver, and pulled the trigger. He learned an important lesson that day, one that shaped how he would raise his own children.
Instead of pretending that firearms don't exist, he understood from personal experience that it was far more important to teach proper firearms familiarization, than to pretend that they do not exist, and hiding behind empty words was not going to offer any gratification whatsoever
Empty words like, "Think of the children".
Frankly, my dad did. That's why I was raised in a household of firearms, and we never even had anything whatsoever go wrong. Using a firearm was as familiar, and safe, as eating with a fork, making our beds, and doing our homework.
It shocks me how we teach our kids to...:
...not run with scissors
...not eat medicine out of the medicine cabinet
...not run across the street without looking both ways and making sure its safe to cross first
...not go off with strangers
...memorize long strings of numbers so they can contact us wherever we are.
...not play with knives
,and a million other life lessons. Yet, people would have you believe, based on their own lack of familiarity of firearms, that you should not ever, for any reason touch, handle, or use a firearm.
I wonder.
How many times has the statement, "Oh God think of the children" been used to describe accidents that involve any of the aforementioned life interactions?
It's ok. Everybody needs an inanimate object to blame for personal loss. God forbid they have to accept personal responsibility for actions, with no device to defer blame to.
Edit: You responded while typing, my responses below:
swine wrote:
Your philosopy would be called 'strategic deterrance' or something like that, like the cold war doctrine of both opponents having 'overkill' capability that prevented each other from actually using their weapons. That hurts me intellectually in many ways. What's the point of all that terrific technology and fine craftsmanship that goes into making a modern 'gun' (or whatever you want to call it), if you can't actually use the damn thing except at target practice, or in your fantasies about some future confrontation where you are 'tragicly forced' against your peaceful preference to actually deploy (fire) your weapon and kill somebody?
The term you are thinking of is actually referred to as M.A.D., or "Mutually Assured Destruction".
The gap you are trying to build a bridge across, is one that links the ecologically and globally disasterous prospect of chained explosions of high yield nuclear warheads, to that of the common firearm, which has probably .00000000000000001% of the collateral damage potential.
I am sorry but this point of view does little to further the argument on your behalf. Very little indeed.
As to the utilization of the "modern gun", it would be a poignant argument if in fact the use of a firearm did not save lives with no collateral damage whatsoever every year.
In fact, FBI estimates with researched substantiation place the use somewhere north of 1,000,000 times a year in the US, that a firearm is used to save a life.
Strategic planning is also a part of life swine. It is the reality of our existence that some people want to, or will want to harm you. No matter how much you believe in auras, or karma, reality always reminds you that life is chaotic.
Ask the people of Virginia Tech.
swine wrote:
Id rather have a weapon that disables without killing and can be used with a good conscience whenever I'm attacked by somebody, not just to make them back down but to 'put them down'. I don't actually know which philosophy makes anybody safer, but a protective weapon that doesn't kill feels better to me.
In order to actual enforce any sort of meaningful resistance to those who wish you mortal harm, you must be able to fight back on the same level.
Weapons the likes of which you are researching and developing are not as effective as a deterrent.
The taking of a life is never a good thing swine, I assure you.
However, it is the very threat of mortality that restrains, restricts, or otherwise empowers a human being to respond with the utmost available pressure, to a situation where their life may be in danger.
Philosophical is wonderful swine. I prize the intellectual.
But being a dead philosopher is the same as being a dead soldier.
May smugness and superiority follow to the afterlife. I am sure it will be of utmost importance there.
swine wrote:
Plus there is some 'deterrance' potential in the air gun to the extent that if they became popular, then assault minded people out there might think twice about launching an assault in the first place, lest the intended victim have one of the devices on them. Of course, they also might shoot first for the same reason. We'll see.
Don't miss.
You might find yourself receiving something far more lethal than a toxin dipped dart.
Just like the depths of the ocean to a diver, or the wide open Sahara to a hiker, a copper jacketed round traveling at supersonic speeds has little concern for philosophy. Either will end your life with no concern for your moral concerns or stipulations.
