Michael-5 said:
Jay520 said:
It's not hard to see why tasers and mace aren't as effective as a gun. Imagine a group of thugs broke into your house while your family was sleeping.Which method seems more "effective"?: (a) initiating close-combat with each assaliant using a taser and/or mace spray, or (b) staying at a safe distance and using your gun to scare them off and/or shoot them if they get too close. Which is the more effective method for protecting you and your family? |
Say WHAAA????? WTF is going on south of the boarder?
I was actually was talking about something like this, and people in Canada would just let them rob us. One of my close friends said to me only a couple weeks ago, and I quote "I'm not getting into a f***en gun fight over property, just let them take my property, it's not worth risking my life over."
No burgler will kill or even harm a victim who isn't resisting. Heck In Canada, we'd probably open the door for them and thank them for not shooting us.
This is the difference between American and Canadian mentality. You don't need a gun, it's a f***en life you're talking about. Mace works for 1 on 1 encounters just as effectively, and in the extremely rare case of a multi person robbery (rare here), most people would just let the robber steal our stuff, and call the police later.
|
Surprised I missed this.
Anyway, none of what you said applies in any way to my point, which is that tasers and mace are not as effective as guns. You may be fine with letting people freely take away your property, but that's certainly not the case for most people. So when encountered with situations such as what I gave above, mace and tasers are ineffective.
And no, mace does not work for 1 on 1 encounters just as effectively because they require to engage in close combat with the attacker, which is never a smart idea.
"No burgler will kill or even harm a victim woh isn't resisting"
LOL, no.
