• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Defending yourself in your home

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
a couple years ago i read an article from a "car expert" who claimed that manual transmissions were less efficient and more dangerous than automatics. his reasoning for this was that the consistency of a computer in shifting is more effective than a human being working a clutch, gas pedal, and stick in harmony noting that "you will probably have to replace the manual transmission after 30k miles due to not shifting properly". he provided no numbers to back up his claim and in addition to this stated manuals are more dangerous because it is all but impossible to do things like eat, put on makeup, read, talk on cell phones, etc. while driving. whereas these activities are far safer in an automatic.

i see the gun debate as being just as fundamentally flawed as his argument. a gun, much like a manual transmission, isn't dangerous. its a very simple tool. when operated properly it functions as designed. and in my oh so humble of opinions, would actually make the world a safer place. however, when it is given all the consideration and respect of a used candy bar wrapper... the end result tends to be less than optimal.

should you own a gun? i guess it depends on your intelligence and the level of respect you are willing to wield it with. personally, im just happy i have the right to choose.
 
Upvote 0
Guns are tools. But to say they are simple and not dangerous is simplistic and an understatement. A gun is not hammer or saw, safe. Now, if we're comparing guns to chain saws or nail guns there is some comparability....:biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
Taosman;1178535; said:
Guns are tools.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. And so are Michigan fans. All tools should be handled with care.

111806fb_08.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1178655; said:
It's hard to know who Chubby is pissed at, but I'll tell you what... whoever is the subject of the cat on the rights' laser focused bad-assary is in serious trouble.
Click to expand...
That's not "Chubbie" thats Captain Scumio to you.
 
Upvote 0
Taosman;1178535; said:
Guns are tools. But to say they are simple and not dangerous is simplistic and an understatement.
Click to expand...

a pair of scissors is dangerous in the wrong hands. what do you find so complex about guns? essentially a spark ignites a small powder charge which propels a projectile out a tube.

A gun is not hammer or saw, safe. Now, if we're comparing guns to chain saws or nail guns there is some comparability....:biggrin:
Click to expand...

whats really funny is the simple hammer is far more dangerous in close quarters than any of the "weapons" you listed. guns and nail guns are significantly limited by the projectile used. the 9mm for example is notorious for its lack of stopping power. chain saws and saws are impractical as weapons. a hammer on the other hand requires surprisingly little force to wield properly and is almost guaranteed to break bones should it make contact with any part of the body.
 
Upvote 0
I just had to dip in here when I saw the first sentence on the post list. Guns are not tools. Guns have one purpose, and that is to maim flesh. The only way a gun could be used as a tool is if you used the butt to hammer nails, which would be silly, if there were a perfectly good rock nearby. A knife is a tool, and axe is a tool. You can make an argument that a sword is a tool, although it's intended purpose is as a weapon. Firing a small projectile at several hundred feet per second can only accomplish one thing: damage what it hits. Someone who wanted to damage something other than flesh would use a more controllable force, if available. Because it would be too dangerous. I'm not saying guns are bad. I'm just saying they only have one purpose, and it ain't to build a new deck.
 
Upvote 0
generaladm;1180260; said:
I just had to dip in here when I saw the first sentence on the post list. Guns are not tools. Guns have one purpose, and that is to maim flesh. The only way a gun could be used as a tool is if you used the butt to hammer nails, which would be silly, if there were a perfectly good rock nearby. A knife is a tool, and axe is a tool. You can make an argument that a sword is a tool, although it's intended purpose is as a weapon. Firing a small projectile at several hundred feet per second can only accomplish one thing: damage what it hits. Someone who wanted to damage something other than flesh would use a more controllable force, if available. Because it would be too dangerous. I'm not saying guns are bad. I'm just saying they only have one purpose, and it ain't to build a new deck.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Hunting requires special purpose tools and those are guns. A tool doesn't have to be used to build a deck. It was an essential tool, besides, when the only food you ate was what you killed. If someone owns a gun and doesn't hunt, then your definition might be closer to truth. :)
 
Upvote 0
OCBuckWife;1180282; said:
Disagree. Hunting requires special purpose tools and those are guns. A tool doesn't have to be used to build a deck. It was an essential tool, besides, when the only food you ate was what you killed. If someone owns a gun and doesn't hunt, then your definition might be closer to truth. :)
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your definition of tools. The word tool was first used to describe the simple tools made by early man (lever, wedge, wheel, pulley). The use of the word has been expanded to describe something that is used to help accomplish a goal, "learning tool", for example. It is a matter of semantics, but I would say most projectile weapons should fall under the "weapons" category, and not "tools". People don't generally refer to bows, crossbows, catapults, etc. as tools. Yes, you could claim they are "tools of the trade" for hunting. I would give you that, but I can just as well grab my junk and say they're the tools of the trade for the baby makin' business.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top