CRAZY PREPARED

[Freeky]

Good advice, sir. Thanks.

[East Coast Hustle]

you DO know what a Derringer is, right?

it's a single-shot (sometimes two shots in a double-barrel configuration) palm-sized pistol that is meant to ONLY be used at point-blank range.

If you can miss your target when your gun is jammed into the target's guts, well, evolution does not favor you.

Yes, I know what a derringer is. It doesn't matter, when someone is in a life-or-death situation all sorts of shit happens. It's not a simple as you make it sound. That aside, I would trust a derringer much less than I would trust a revolver in terms of reliability and in terms of accidental discharge.

The attitude that just because it's a derringer anyone ought to be able to carry it around safely and be able to use it properly if they absolutely had to is irresponsible. It's still a gun and shouldn't be in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

you missed the part where there's no excuse for not knowing some basic firearm safety in this day and age. Especially since they're not tricky mechanisms, everything you need to know about them in terms of minimizing risk to yourself is pretty much common sense. Remember, I'm not addressing the world at large, this is advice specifically tailored for the superior mutants at PD.com. Also, if the situation truly is life or death, I fail to see how you're better off with a non-lethal way of defending yourself from someone who may very well be trying to kill you.

[Doktor Howl]

you DO know what a Derringer is, right?

it's a single-shot (sometimes two shots in a double-barrel configuration) palm-sized pistol that is meant to ONLY be used at point-blank range.

If you can miss your target when your gun is jammed into the target's guts, well, evolution does not favor you.

Yes, I know what a derringer is. It doesn't matter, when someone is in a life-or-death situation all sorts of shit happens. It's not a simple as you make it sound. That aside, I would trust a derringer much less than I would trust a revolver in terms of reliability and in terms of accidental discharge.

The attitude that just because it's a derringer anyone ought to be able to carry it around safely and be able to use it properly if they absolutely had to is irresponsible. It's still a gun and shouldn't be in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

you missed the part where there's no excuse for not knowing some basic firearm safety in this day and age. Especially since they're not tricky mechanisms, everything you need to know about them in terms of minimizing risk to yourself is pretty much common sense. Remember, I'm not addressing the world at large, this is advice specifically tailored for the superior mutants at PD.com. Also, if the situation truly is life or death, I fail to see how you're better off with a non-lethal way of defending yourself from someone who may very well be trying to kill you.

Heh.  Circa 1882:

Never handle firearms carelessly. The sorrow and suffering that have been caused through the innocent but heedless handling of firearms by the young! Only four days ago, right in the next farm house to the one where I am spending the summer, a grandmother, old and gray and sweet, one of the loveliest spirits in the land, was sitting at her work, when her young grandson crept in and got down an old, battered, rusty gun which had not been touched for many years and was supposed not to be loaded, and pointed it at her, laughing and threatening to shoot. In her fright she ran screaming and pleading toward the door on the other side of the room; but as she passed him he placed the gun almost against her very breast and pulled the trigger! He had supposed it was not loaded. And he was right--it wasn't. So there wasn't any harm done. It is the only case of that kind I ever heard of. Therefore, just the same, don't you meddle with old unloaded firearms; they are the most deadly and unerring things that have ever been created by man. You don't have to take any pains at all with them; you don't have to have a rest, you don't have to have any sights on the gun, you don't have to take aim, even. No, you just pick out a relative and bang away, and you are sure to get him. A youth who can't hit a cathedral at thirty yards with a Gatling gun in three quarters of an hour, can take up an old empty musket and bag his grandmother every time, at a hundred. Think what Waterloo would have been if one of the armies had been boys armed with old muskets supposed not to be loaded, and the other army had been composed of their female relations. The very thought of it make one shudder.

[Freeky]

you DO know what a Derringer is, right?

it's a single-shot (sometimes two shots in a double-barrel configuration) palm-sized pistol that is meant to ONLY be used at point-blank range.

If you can miss your target when your gun is jammed into the target's guts, well, evolution does not favor you.

Yes, I know what a derringer is. It doesn't matter, when someone is in a life-or-death situation all sorts of shit happens. It's not a simple as you make it sound. That aside, I would trust a derringer much less than I would trust a revolver in terms of reliability and in terms of accidental discharge.

The attitude that just because it's a derringer anyone ought to be able to carry it around safely and be able to use it properly if they absolutely had to is irresponsible. It's still a gun and shouldn't be in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

you missed the part where there's no excuse for not knowing some basic firearm safety in this day and age. Especially since they're not tricky mechanisms, everything you need to know about them in terms of minimizing risk to yourself is pretty much common sense. Remember, I'm not addressing the world at large, this is advice specifically tailored for the superior mutants at PD.com. Also, if the situation truly is life or death, I fail to see how you're better off with a non-lethal way of defending yourself from someone who may very well be trying to kill you.

You have a good point, but disliking firearms for mre than home defense =/= not knowing how to use a firearm. I could use some practice with a revolver (last time I picked on up and pretended to aim it I had one hand on the barrel in front of the chambers), but I know quite a bit about gun safety in general.

Plus, there's nothing quite as satisfying to those raging monkey urges than bashing something with a hard stick.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Freeky couldn't shoot anyone to save her own life.  It's just not in her programming.

She might if her monkey was threatened, of course.  But she'd be better off with bear spray or a spike.

If my monkey was threatened, all I'd need is my fucking TEETH.

I bet I could weild a hammer or other blunt instrument. It somehow doesn't seem the same as puncturing someone or blowing holes in them, bashing their skulls in.

A blunt instrument to the head would probably stop someone faster than a knife would, but like I said before your best defense is paying attention to your surroundings, having quick access to help and being able to make a quick escape if necessary.

[Freeky]

Yes, that is the best option. Thank you, by the way.

[East Coast Hustle]

you DO know what a Derringer is, right?

it's a single-shot (sometimes two shots in a double-barrel configuration) palm-sized pistol that is meant to ONLY be used at point-blank range.

If you can miss your target when your gun is jammed into the target's guts, well, evolution does not favor you.

Yes, I know what a derringer is. It doesn't matter, when someone is in a life-or-death situation all sorts of shit happens. It's not a simple as you make it sound. That aside, I would trust a derringer much less than I would trust a revolver in terms of reliability and in terms of accidental discharge.

The attitude that just because it's a derringer anyone ought to be able to carry it around safely and be able to use it properly if they absolutely had to is irresponsible. It's still a gun and shouldn't be in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing.

you missed the part where there's no excuse for not knowing some basic firearm safety in this day and age. Especially since they're not tricky mechanisms, everything you need to know about them in terms of minimizing risk to yourself is pretty much common sense. Remember, I'm not addressing the world at large, this is advice specifically tailored for the superior mutants at PD.com. Also, if the situation truly is life or death, I fail to see how you're better off with a non-lethal way of defending yourself from someone who may very well be trying to kill you.

You have a good point, but disliking firearms for mre than home defense =/= not knowing how to use a firearm. I could use some practice with a revolver (last time I picked on up and pretended to aim it I had one hand on the barrel in front of the chambers), but I know quite a bit about gun safety in general.

Plus, there's nothing quite as satisfying to those raging monkey urges than bashing something with a hard stick.

oh, absolutely. I was addressing AtD's point, which seems to be that you are automatically safer NOT having a gun than having one. That notion is patently bullshit, though the reverse is not automatically true either.

[East Coast Hustle]

also, in a real life-or-death situation where someone is trying to kill you, given that at that point you are legally justified in ending their life there is pretty much no reason to stop them by less-than-lethal means, as that just leaves them alive and nursing a grudge.

ETA: emphasis on REAL life-or-death situation, as opposed to someone just trying to kick your ass, mug you, etc.

[Freeky]

Hit them hard enough with a blunt object in the head, they're just as dead as if you shot them. And with less blood on most occasions.

Or at least, so I hear.

[Jasper]

Weapons should be scary.  Scary weapons need not be as deadly.

This is why I advocate using sonics, tear gas... Hell, why not a flare gun?

[Freeky]

Weapons should be scary.  Scary weapons need not be as deadly.

This is why I advocate using sonics, tear gas... Hell, why not a flare gun?

If we're going for scary, I want a flamethrower.

[Jasper]

oh. fuck. me. flare gun. . . 

But bring two, because they're single-shot.  That way you still have the clout to bluff.

[East Coast Hustle]

Hit them hard enough with a blunt object in the head, they're just as dead as if you shot them. And with less blood on most occasions.

Or at least, so I hear.

actually, hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat or similar club-like object will be ALOT bloodier than a single gunshot nearly all of the time. And hitting someone in a fatal spot with a heavy stick while your adrenal gland is dumping is alot harder than it sounds. Also, you need to be within their striking range to hit them with a club, whereas a gunshot, even if not immediately fatal, is likely to stop or slow their advance and buy you time and distance, both of which are incredibly important when you're trying to save your own life.

also, in regards to Felix's post, trying to scare someone who's trying to kill you is never a good idea. If they found you threatening, they wouldn't have picked you as a target in the first place, and if you try to scare them off all you're probably doing is losing the element of surprise and/or handing them an opportunity to seize the initiative and make a move on you.

[East Coast Hustle]

remember, survival in a life or death situation isn't about looking cool or sticking to your morals, it's about doing whatever will maximize your chance of surviving.

[Jasper]

Hmm.  I have a hunch that if the scary isn't working, it's because it's not scary enough.

I used to daydream about making a combined bear spray/taser/boat horn device.  I think it's a wicked idea, and I doubt people would keep attacking after a blast of poisoned air, deafening noise and electric shocks.