Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him.
Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community?
Half the households in a country have at least 1 firearm, it's not because most live in fear. Stereotyping is not the way to go about this issue, nor any other issue. It would be unfair to say that most women who get an abortion are murderers and deserve to go to hell, or that pot smokers are low-life losers or hippies. It's just not the case. It is a liberty issue that everyone should be concerned about, liberal or conservative.
Why then? Why they need it if they have nothing to fear?
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: Ridiculous. If you could get to a gun and fire it, you could get to a taser and fire it. At that point, it comes down to the factors I mentioned.
Ridiculous? If you honestly believe a taser puts you on equal footing with a guy with a handgun you obviously don't have as much "combat training" as you keep claiming. Theres a damn good reason you won't see any cops tasing someone in a firefight.
What happened to the last 248 pages of this thread? Haven't you guys read anything? With proper gun control, the criminal is much less likely to have a gun in the first place, in which case a tazer or pepperspray is going to do wonders (And if anyone is in doubt, pepper spray to the eyes or a tazer shot WILL stop a criminal. Theres no "maybe" about it, despite what Hollywood depicts).
If the criminal you're facing already has a gun on you, you owning a gun for self defense isn't going to help in any case. Most of the time it will only help to increase the chance of you yourself getting shot.
Its been proven so many times (and we already went through this the last 20 pages), owning a gun for self defense only increases the chances of you getting shot. Its an illusion!
Wow, you could literally read a few posts above on why I think outlawing guns won't take them out of criminal hands. At this point I think you're either being purposely obtuse or literally have no idea how many guns are in the hands of people who are criminals. Anyone claiming banning guns outright is the correct route, I'm sorry but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
How is a taser going to be effective versus a crazy man wielding a handgun? I've yet to see anyone describe how they would get guns out of the hands of criminals. Every crack head, drug dealer, and thief are all armed with handguns. And they sure as hell ain't going to give them up because the law says so. As it is it's illegal for criminals to have guns and with very stiff penalties they still don't care. What's the next step for possessing a illegal fire arm? Death? Life in prison?
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him.
Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community?
Half the households in a country have at least 1 firearm, it's not because most live in fear. Stereotyping is not the way to go about this issue, nor any other issue. It would be unfair to say that most women who get an abortion are murderers and deserve to go to hell, or that pot smokers are low-life losers or hippies. It's just not the case. It is a liberty issue that everyone should be concerned about, liberal or conservative.
Why then? Why they need it if they have nothing to fear?
Emergency preparedness Commerce and employment Historical preservation and study Obtaining food by hunting Olympic competition Collecting Sporting pursuits Target practice Recreational shooting Oh, and constitutional right. Almost forgot that one.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the goverment will actualy do something this time
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the goverment will actualy do something this time
What do you propose the government do? Be honest, I want to know the extent of what you believe.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the goverment will actualy do something this time
Exactly the only thing you know about guns in america is what the media has fed you. You have no idea how pervasive they are. You have no clue that there are 300million+ of them and the government has no way to trace 99% of them because there are no registries that states who has what guns. You have no idea that common nobody criminals currently have illegal guns risking years in prison if they are caught with them, but you still claim outlawing guns will remove them from criminal hands. Are you really this blind? If criminals regularly use firearms that could get them years in prison under current laws what makes you think a new law banning guns will make them give them up? Life in prison? Death sentence?
Of course you're going to ignore these facts because you don't have a counter argument to them. Just as you have for the last 50 pages.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the goverment will actualy do something this time
Exactly the only thing you know about guns in america is what the media has fed you. You have no idea how pervasive they are. You have no clue that there are 300million+ of them and the government has no way to trace 99% of them because there are no registries that states who has what guns. You have no idea that common nobody criminals currently have illegal guns risking years in prison if they are caught with them, but you still claim outlawing guns will remove them from criminal hands. Are you really this blind? If criminals regularly use firearms that could get them years in prison under current laws what makes you think a new law banning guns will make them give them up? Life in prison? Death sentence?
Of course you're going to ignore these facts because you don't have a counter argument to them. Just as you have for the last 50 pages.
Is your argument that things are so far beyond fucked up, that legislating against guns is not worth it?
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
How you can ask such a question scares me. Firstly i like how you change mass shootings to gun-related crime, in that case of course its only 1% because of all the gang related crime. But it's obvious assualt rifle's are the prefer'd weapons in mass shootings, one was used on friday, one was used at the batman shooting and countless other school/mall attacks.
And to answer your frankly... dumb question about assault weapons being diffrent to hunting rifles. Do you need a 45 ammo magazine to go hunting? Do you need a semi automatic to go hunting? No, "hunting rifle" does the job fine.
Also do you need a assault rifle for self defence? no.
I thought this was common sense, we are going round in circles here
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: [quote]
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the goverment will actualy do something this time
Exactly the only thing you know about guns in america is what the media has fed you. You have no idea how pervasive they are. You have no clue that there are 300million+ of them and the government has no way to trace 99% of them because there are no registries that states who has what guns. You have no idea that common nobody criminals currently have illegal guns risking years in prison if they are caught with them, but you still claim outlawing guns will remove them from criminal hands. Are you really this blind? If criminals regularly use firearms that could get them years in prison under current laws what makes you think a new law banning guns will make them give them up? Life in prison? Death sentence?
Of course you're going to ignore these facts because you don't have a counter argument to them. Just as you have for the last 50 pages.
Is your argument that things are so far beyond fucked up, that legislating against guns is not worth it?
If you're not going to take 15minutes out of your time to read my posts and understand my opinion I'm not going to take the time to respond to you. I'm sick of correcting people on what they could have easily just read my positions before assuming what my positions are.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an arguement? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
Define "assault weapon"? Go ahead and use your time to google it, come up with the best answer you can. Unfortunately, those most opposed to "assault weapons" are those who understand the subject the least, such as yourself. Would that have prevented the school shooting? Didn't CT already have an "assault weapon" ban since 1994? What were the effects of the nationwide, federal assault weapon ban Clinton signed in 1994? Did it make sense, did it have any effect?
It's best to think clearly before trying to turn me into a villain. I'm not some white, southern hill billy redneck shouting murica or liberty or freedom that you can conveniently stereotype. This is an issue that should be thought about with clear minds after people have stepped back from a shocking incident like 3 days ago. We need to look at past policy, at facts, at studies of all kinds and go from there.
On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote: [quote]
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the goverment will actualy do something this time
Exactly the only thing you know about guns in america is what the media has fed you. You have no idea how pervasive they are. You have no clue that there are 300million+ of them and the government has no way to trace 99% of them because there are no registries that states who has what guns. You have no idea that common nobody criminals currently have illegal guns risking years in prison if they are caught with them, but you still claim outlawing guns will remove them from criminal hands. Are you really this blind? If criminals regularly use firearms that could get them years in prison under current laws what makes you think a new law banning guns will make them give them up? Life in prison? Death sentence?
Of course you're going to ignore these facts because you don't have a counter argument to them. Just as you have for the last 50 pages.
Is your argument that things are so far beyond fucked up, that legislating against guns is not worth it?
If you're not going to take 15minutes out of your time to read my posts and understand my opinion I'm not going to take the time to respond to you. I'm sick of correcting people on what they could have easily just read my positions before assuming what my positions are.
Lol ok bro. You have almost 50 posts in this thread, not a chance I'm reading them all. I have been following the thread, and read the last few pages. Your last couple posts indicate that you think the problem is beyond repair; that introducing laws to control access to guns won't help because there are some many guns in circulation and "no way to trace 99% of them".
edit: unless i've made the incorrect assumption that there is in fact a "problem" ?
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
Can we please stop using "constitutional rights" as an argument? You can't possibly think that laws should never change as the world around it does?
And no one is talking about banning guns. Please start reading what has actually been said here (not the whole 248 pages, only the LAST page will do wonders). We're talking about gun restriction. But I will add a personal note that assault weapons should be banned. You say "why?", and I say "why the fuck not?". There is no reason a weapons specifically designed to murder as many people as possible should be in the hands of civilians.
And how exactly do you measure "liberty"? Do you have more liberty the more guns you own? How does that work out exactly? How does your gun represent freedom?
"Assault rifles" are no different in function than hunting rifles. Having a stock that can be lengthened or shortened 6~ inches, a pistol grip instead of holding the stock, and a bayonet lug do not make rifles "designed to murder as many people as possible". You obviously have no knowledge about firearms if you don't even know that "assault rifles" are classified by those features and function exactly the same as older hunting rifles.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
How you can ask such a question scares me. Firstly i like how you change mass shootings to gun-related crime, in that case of course its only 1% because of all the gang related crime. But it's obvious assualt rifle's are the prefer'd weapons in mass shootings, one was used on friday, one was used at the batman shooting and countless other school/mall attacks.
And to answer your frankly... dumb question about assault weapons being diffrent to hunting rifles. Do you need a 45 ammo magazine to go hunting? Do you need a semi automatic to go hunting? No, "hunting rifle" does the job fine.
Also do you need a assault rifle for self defence? no.
I thought this was common sense, we are going round in circles here
So you are in favor of banning and confiscating high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic fire?
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the government will actually do something this time
Gun control would have done nothing to stop that massacre. This psycho shot all his victims multiple times. He would have done similar damage with a knife if he stabbed his victims 3-4 times each. Gun control laws wouldn't have stopped Aurora. The shooter had illegally obtained automatic rifles and working grenades. Gun laws didn't stop Virginia Tech, the shooter should never of had access to firearms in the first place due to his diagnosed mental illness.
Add that to the fact that almost all gun homicides are committed by former convicts/felons who should never have had guns in the first place, and the answer is clear. It's not MORE laws, it's ensuring that our current laws are actually enforced. If the gun laws are enforced so poorly now, what makes you think adding more ineffectively enforced gun restrictions is actually gonna fix anything?
1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the US. Mother Jones has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the past three decades. ''Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,'' they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally.
2. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the past 50 years happened in the US. In second place is Finland, with two entries.
3. Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland. As David Lamp from the Cato Institute writes, ''In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a licence to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States'.''
4. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened since 2006. That doesn't include the Newtown, Connecticut, shooting.
5. America is an unusually violent country. But it's not as violent as it used to be. Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, in July made a graph of ''deaths due to assault'' in the US and other developed countries. The US is a clear outlier, with rates well above other countries. As Healy writes, ''The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the US is than other OECD countries … and (2) the degree of change - and recently, decline - there has been in the US.''
6. Gun ownership in the US is declining. ''For all the attention given to America's culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,'' political scientist Patrick Egan, of New York University, wrote in July. ''Long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the US.''
7. More guns tend to mean more homicide. The Harvard Injury Control Research Centre assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.
8. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. Last year, economist Richard Florida dived deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.
9. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular in the US. Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don't. ''The percentage in favour of making the laws governing the sale of firearms 'more strict' fell from 78 per cent in 1990 to 62 per cent in 1995, and 51 per cent in 2007,'' Gallup reported after a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, last year. ''In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44 per cent in favour of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.''
10. But particular policies to control guns often are. An August CNN poll asked Americans whether they favour or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular. About 90 per cent support background checks and no guns for felons or the mentally ill.
11. Shootings don't tend to substantially affect the views of Americans on gun control. That, at least, is what the Pew Research Centre found in a poll taken after the Colorado movie theatre shooting in July that killed 12.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Owning guns does make a person biased, but biased towards what, exactly? Biased to preserving constitutional rights. Not succumbing to knee-jerk reactions? You want half the households in the U.S. to give up their firearms because of what reason exactly? To reduce violent crime?
You want 300 million firearms, what... confiscated? Because you think it will stop gun crime or even slow it down? You want "assault weapons" banned why? Because they're used in the commission of 0.5% - 1% of gun-related crime? Is an "assault weapon" functionally different than a hunting rifle?
I'm confused as to what the bias is here exactly. Let me tell you something, if the solution politicians offer as a knee-jerk reaction to an event does not even help prevent the event from happening in the first place, it is a bad and unneeded policy. Especially when it goes against both your interests and mine, liberal or conservative. This is a liberty issue that has the principles and facts behind it. It's worth getting behind.
How you can ask such a question scares me. Firstly i like how you change mass shootings to gun-related crime, in that case of course its only 1% because of all the gang related crime. But it's obvious assualt rifle's are the prefer'd weapons in mass shootings, one was used on friday, one was used at the batman shooting and countless other school/mall attacks.
And to answer your frankly... dumb question about assault weapons being diffrent to hunting rifles. Do you need a 45 ammo magazine to go hunting? Do you need a semi automatic to go hunting? No, "hunting rifle" does the job fine.
Also do you need a assault rifle for self defence? no.
I thought this was common sense, we are going round in circles here
So you are in favor of banning and confiscating high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic fire?
Yes i think that would be a step in the right direction.
In before the "but if they cant use those then they will simply use other means" arguement.
Just as an added clarification, I would like to believe that most firearm owners are in support of more effective restrictions of firearms. Not more restrictions, but more effective restrictions.
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off.
And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time.
Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness.
I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing).
Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them).
It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence.
During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol.
During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post?
Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself.
Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head.
What are they based on? 20 dead kids 3 days ago. Not even talking about all the other shootings that happens in america on a almost weekly basis.
This just brings the arguement back to square one but i had to say it because its obvious what people's views on the situation is in america so dont know why you really asked.
Lets just hope the government will actually do something this time
Gun control would have done nothing to stop that massacre. This psycho shot all his victims multiple times. He would have done similar damage with a knife if he stabbed his victims 3-4 times each. Gun control laws wouldn't have stopped Aurora. The shooter had illegally obtained automatic rifles and working grenades. Gun laws didn't stop Virginia Tech, the shooter should never of had access to firearms in the first place due to his diagnosed mental illness.
Add that to the fact that almost all gun homicides are committed by former convicts/felons who should never have had guns in the first place, and the answer is clear. It's not MORE laws, it's ensuring that our current laws are actually enforced. If the gun laws are enforced so poorly now, what makes you think adding more ineffectively enforced gun restrictions is actually gonna fix anything?
This has been argue'd before and is very weak, knife would not do no where near as much damage, not to mention the fact that teachers tried to stop this kid with a GUN, there is a much higher chance that they would of succeded if he only had a knife.
EPT
. I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!
