Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 08:39 UTC
Re: Civilian conceal carry of weapons ¶
Yes, weapons are for offense. You might lay claim to the use of this offensive capacity for defensive purposes but the undeniable fact remains it operates entirely on offensive principles. Defense on the other hand renders weaponry ineffective.
There's no such thing as "mitigated weaponry". Clearly. The existence of things that render weapons ineffective are figments of my imagination.That's why MgAl3 foam backed by a non-newtonian fluid will eat the forces from a .45 - which converts to dust on impact - whilst providing incredibly little force transfer past the fluid. It's called "mitigation". If you want to stop more than a .45, you use slightly thicker than a cm of foam. Your knife is pretty ineffective to such things, too. If you'd spend ½ a second thinking instead of ranting about irrational fears then you might be able to see solutions.
I'm not saying make a weapon less of a weapon. I'm saying you don't need weaponry. I'm saying no matter what you build, I'll build something more destructive - this is a game entirely best avoided and the only way to truely win is to not play.
The absence of weaponry is heavily impacting on the feeling of requiring it. Without expectation of encountering it, what excuses exist for possession of? As your entire argument appears to revolve around return of the same, you can do that without.
You can use space, if you'd again stop to think rather than rant you'd realise the rediculousness of that entire premise. Just as rediculous as the premise that violence is the only solution to violence. Fire fighting with fire isn't something subscribed to by any sane firefighter.