• AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Idk, having something that could melt metal from a safe distance as a deterrent seems a bit overkill. But don’t take my word for it, I might be overreacting.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s just running on butane - it won’t have enough heat mass to melt metal (and produce any notable flames). Probably it won’t do much more to a person than startle the hell out of them and maybe ignite their hair.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 hours ago

            I think even oxy-butane tops out at 2,000°C (which is 50,000°F or something idk). 3,300°C is around the max for oxy-acetylene, which is I’m assuming what the person writing this was looking at.

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Great, create more fear in society and pit people against each other and give them weapons, too. Winning concept.

        • tomiant@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          What attacker? There is no attacker, it’s all a hypothetical situation meant to rile up people like you.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          By that logic, shouldn’t everyone carry a gun too? If it’s theoretically only going to be used against an active attacker, what’s the big deal?

          (Note: this isn’t an argument for carrying guns)

          • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            A lot of people carry guns specifically for that reason. I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution, but it speaks of a bigger issue that is being ignored. If people are forced to look out for themselves then the options become very limited and outside of the possibility of anything approaching ideal. I’m not choosing to worry about the attackers getting set on fire in this situation, my concerns and those of the people who have a need for things like this have already been outright ignored entirely. People don’t have a better option, it was taken from them already.

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 hours ago

              And has easy access to guns never caused problems? Possibly more problems than they’ve solved?

              My problem isn’t with people deterring potential attackers or fighting off actual attackers. My concern is with the potential for misuse, and the fact that labeling this as some innocent means of self-defense is covering up the fact that it wouldn’t be limited to being used exclusively by victims. That’s just marketing. Any psycho could buy one of these.

              • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Yup. That’s the available option.

                Maybe we should try to address the issues with the longstanding preservation of rape culture. When that never happens, though, this is what we are left with. You’re mad at the pen, you should be mad at the person who threw the pen.

                • tomiant@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  You are mad at men, just like racists are mad at immigrants. There is literally no difference in your worldviews, only the targets.

        • tomiant@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          The problem is that who an “abuser” is is extremely subjective. In this case it’s evil men. What if people buy these because they’re scared of evil immigrants? The argument is the exact same.

          And nothing is stopping abusers from getting these too. You think they have a little checkbox on the order you have to cross on the form so they don’t accidentally sell them to the wrong person?

          And who are they against exactly, gropers, rapists, people that hit on you in a club, any stranger that approaches you? Burning someone alive is a pretty big commitment, you better make sure you got the right person, or else you’re just another psychopath with a weapon waiting for a chance to use it on anyone you dislike.