Gun rights people often talk about being prepared. When questioned about their decision to own and carry guns, they love to fall back on the seemingly wise mantra, it's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. But why don't they wear ballistic underwear Or, tourniquet pants?
Well, they certainly would if they truly wanted to be prepared for that extremely rare possibility of finding themselves in a gunfight. But that's not it at all. The reason they don't generally go in for these things is because, unlike guns, they don't pack the same punch where the ego is concerned. Guns feed into the fantasy of actively carrying out violence against a perceived threat. Guns make weak men feel powerful. Firing a gun in practice provides an exhilirating rush that's just lacking in the more passive and less glamorous defensive accoutrements. Possessing a gun, and especially carrying one, provides a subconscious stimulation knowing that at any moment you could be just like Tom Cruise in "Collateral" or Liam Neesen in "Taken."
Your attempts at psychoanalysis are entertaining as usual. And way off for the bulk of us, as usual. As we've said before, when one is trying to be prepared, one has to weigh probabilities of some things happening and whether certain countermeasures are worth it. While I usually carry a gun, I don't always. I don't wear tourniquet pants, but I do have quick-clot in my briefcase along with advil, imodium, and one of my epi-pens. A cousin of mine does have tourniquet pants--he bought them when going on a tour of Israel where he decided that the risks involved in the trip, while still statistically small, were worth it.
ReplyDeleteIf you really weighed "whether certain countermeasures are worth it", you'd wear the defensive garments and leave the guns at home.
DeleteIf you really weighed "whether certain countermeasures are worth it", you'd wear the defensive garments and leave the guns at home.
DeleteSo you think the possibility of needing a gun is small enough to be ignored, but it does make sense to wear clothes intended to provide protection when shot in the crotch? It seems to me that for most guys, if someone is trying to shoot them in the junk, they want to be able to shoot back.
Pure defense is all well and good, but if you have no credible counterattack, the aggressor has all the time in the world to shoot you where you aren't armored.
Mike, are you seriously going to argue that underwear makes for a better defense tool than a gun?
Delete"If you really weighed "whether certain countermeasures are worth it", you'd wear the defensive garments and leave the guns at home."
DeleteWhat to wear, and what to carry are both personal decisions Mike.
My remark was sort-of a combination of hyperbole and sarcasm. The point was, in case you've not picked up on it yet, is that guns do more harm than good and therefore, you should just leave them at home.
DeleteDon't you think they do more harm than good at home too?
DeleteYeah, I do, but if someone wants a gun in their home and they qualify to own it, that's their business. I think it's a stupid decision in most cases, but it's up to them.
Delete. . . but it's up to them.
DeleteAs is the decision whether or not to have a gun wherever else they have a right to be.
Well, these products being on the market pretty much proves that there is at least enough interest to convince someone to risk their money to produce the product. After that, the market will decide, though I've seen the tourniquet pants available for awhile. And of course, assuming that no one passes a law against the possession of body armor by citizens.
ReplyDeleteAnd keep in mind, that while going to a range and shooting is a lot of fun, routinely carrying? Not so much.
Tom Cruise or Liam Neeson...wow are you out of touch with reality
ReplyDeleteOh, you have never imagined youself saving the day by defeating a bad guy with a gun? You're immune to the impressions of movie-star heroes, who, like you, carry guns.
DeleteCruise doesn't play a good guy in Collateral. He plays a contract killer. We even discussed that in a previous posting. Most of my impressions of movie portrayals lean towards the lack of realism or reasonableness these days.
Delete"Oh, you have never imagined youself saving the day by defeating a bad guy with a gun? You're immune to the impressions of movie-star heroes, who, like you, carry guns.".......NO and YES......As I have said before I am anti war and anti violence except in cases of self defense and I am certainly not the guy who is going to save yours or others ass's in an attempt to play the hero....Ill be a good witness along with my family others can be the victims...your safety and that of your family is your responsibility no one else....No such thing as movie star heroes Mike
Deletess, indeed Tom Cruise did not play a "good guy" in Collateral, however he was the star protagonist, the one you guys would have identified with. Furthermore, in the famous scene we discussed before, compared to the guys he killed, he was the good guy. It was a relative thing.
DeleteOf course, the real reason is most gunloons have size 56 waists or larger. Tourniquet undies would likely kill them.
ReplyDeleteBesides, gunloon nether regions haven't seen blood flow in many years.
"Besides, gunloon nether regions haven't seen blood flow in many years"....Not if they have been anywhere near you
DeleteMike, you do realize that Semper Paratus is the motto of the Coast Guard, right?
ReplyDeleteYeah, so?
DeleteI'd never before heard of "ballistic underwear," and frankly, I'm more than a bit skeptical about its ability to provide a useful amount of protection while simultaneously allowing freedom of movement and at least a modicum of comfort, especially in hot and/or humid conditions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I see that one purchase gets you one set of the ballistic panels, and three pairs of the underwear. I wonder how long they would hold up to twice a week washing.