Friday, June 17, 2022

Nerf gun for defense?


Do you believe a Nerf gun would be a good defensive tool? Good enough to recommend others adopt its use and depend on it for their lives?

Maybe it's better than nothing. Maybe. More likely it could lull someone (who isn't too bright) into a false sense that they have done something useful to defend themselves when the chance of it actually working to protect them is practically zero.

Sure, I suppose you could modify the darts with poison or explosives, but I wouldn't want to encourage others to rely on that for defense.

I think anyone suggesting to someone that they should use a Nerf gun for defense is doing them a disservice; misleading them down a bad path. I'm not going to tell them they are forbidden from giving it a try, but my expectations for it succeeding are incredibly low. A real gun, or even a rock or sharpened stick, would be much more effective.

I also understand the argument for defensive v*ting. But I think it's more similar to depending on a Nerf gun for defense than doing something that will actually have a chance to work defensively in the real world. The chance of it being effective is close enough to zero to be ignored.

-

Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon

3 comments:

  1. “I also understand the argument for defensive v*ting. But I think it's more similar to depending on a Nerf gun for defense than doing something that will actually have a chance to work defensively in the real world. The chance of it being effective is close enough to zero to be ignored.”

    I can’t legitimately argue that voting is an effective defense against government in the 21st century America we live in, especially since the majority of the eligible electorate don’t even choose to use it. I can however still defend its use as a form of speech; public speech directly addressed to those in the State, to assert my dismissal of those who wish to join it via their candidacy by refusing to pick any of them and by my denial of any measures to rob (i.e. tax) the people or usurp the prerogatives of civil society that they attempt to implement by seeking the approval of the voters for. I am a firm believer in using any and all means of opposing the State especially those that are non-violent if at all possible. It is a continual disappointment to me that most of those who share my opposition to the State believe that expressing their disapproval privately in comments to blogs and websites is somehow more effective in achieving change than publically doing so to the government directly. The governments are required to acknowledge the later (thus far) while they can readily, and do, ignore the former. When the State ignores a clear rejection of a measure on the ballot from the voters and imposes it regardless, then I too will stop wasting my time on such ‘public speech’.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Locally (on the other side of the state line) government wanted a new jail. The people rejected it at the ballot. Twice. It wasn't the answer they were willing to accept, so government went ahead and did it anyway, without letting anyone v*te on it that time. That's just one example I can think of off the top of my head.
      "When the State ignores a clear rejection of a measure on the ballot from the voters and imposes it regardless" is in the rearview mirror.

      As with using a Nerf gun for defense, I'm not going to scold you for trying, I'm just going to point out that it isn't very likely to be effective. Maybe on things government doesn't really care about, but not on things they've already decided they are going to do.

      Delete
    2. I haven’t encountered such ‘in your face’ tyranny in my locality…..yet. But, given the nature of the currently trending arrogance of the State, I won’t be able to express any surprise when I (eventually?) do. I rue the day when blood spilling becomes the only alternative to slavery, but then, perhaps it always was.

      Delete