This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]To be fair, there are tasers that can stun from 20 feet away.
foxhound_fox
Are they, I wasn't aware there were any real certifications that needed to met on tasers out side of the amount of charge its suppose to send through the victim.
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] it doesnt matter how many people are responsible. theres no need to have them in the first place. you wouldnt let me have a nuclear bomb even if you knew i wouldnt use it. Its a matter of rationality. The constitution is wrong in this situation.foxhound_fox
Knives have other purposes. Guns are there for killing only.
Atheists_Pwn
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]
So people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? How does a 90 lb woman overpower a 250-300 lb man? How does said woman feel safe and secure in knowing that if she has a taser, he has to get within arms length in order for he to subdue him?
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]Knives have other purposes. Guns are there for killing only.
Atheists_Pwn
Furthermore if your not a marksmen, isn't a handgun only accurate within 10 to 15 feet?
Knives have other purposes. Guns are there for killing only.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
I agree. Also: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Because of a few morons, should we ban kitchen knives because of accidents that cause fatal injuries are caused by them? The object is not at fault, it is the person wielding the object.ex-mortis
Guns were originally designed for that, but people don't buy weapons commercially to use them to kill people. They're easier to trace for example. Guns are also a fun hobby for lots of people. Why do you think clubs and shooting ranges exist? Although I sort of agree that guns don't really serve any practical purpose apart from defense, but then again a lot of things don't serve any purpose. I still don't agree they should be banned though.
you can have guns that dont kill people to have fun with the same hobby. target shooting can be done at a shooting range with authorized guns, or things that are gun-like but not lethal. other things that dont serve a purpose usually arent lethalPeople only need guns incase someone else has a gun. Stopping production on guns would clear up a lot of gun violence in this world as a huge number of guns are in fact made in the USA. If we stopped making guns then a lot of the guns being smuggled in to t he country wouldnt be there in the first place Then get a paintball gun if you want to target shoot. or goto a designated shooting range or whatever theyre called[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Target shooting.sSubZerOo
Furthermore if your not a marksmen, isn't a handgun only accurate within 10 to 15 feet?
i have no idea. if thats true then its a good point/Thread. lol consult Nintendo's Wii safety page? New rule added, don't leave loaded guns around children (kinda bad when a video game company has to teach you some common sense that really doesn't have to do anything with their company)Don't blame Nintendo. Who the hell leaves a gun on a table with a child in the home?
Forever_Posting
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]To be fair, there are tasers that can stun from 20 feet away.
sSubZerOo
Are they, I wasn't aware there were any real certifications that needed to met on tasers out side of the amount of charge its suppose to send through the victim.
They are not. There are specific LTL Tasers available to consumers. Click here for proof.
Don't know how they differ from the military grade or professional security builds but I don't doubt they are any less effective.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
They are law enforcement-only though, aren't they?ex-mortis
Are they, I wasn't aware there were any real certifications that needed to met on tasers out side of the amount of charge its suppose to send through the victim.
They are not. There are specific LTL Tasers available to consumers. Click here for proof.
Don't know how they differ from the military grade or professional security builds but I don't doubt they are any less effective.
That stun gun though can launch 15foot probes to stun people at a distance..
[QUOTE="ex-mortis"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Are they, I wasn't aware there were any real certifications that needed to met on tasers out side of the amount of charge its suppose to send through the victim.
sSubZerOo
They are not. There are specific LTL Tasers available to consumers. Click here for proof.
Don't know how they differ from the military grade or professional security builds but I don't doubt they are any less effective.
That stun gun though can launch 15foot probes to stun people at a distance..
"Legal To Carry In Most States
TASER devices are not considered firearms by the U.S. Government. They can be legally carried (concealed or open) without permit in 43 states. Use of TASER ECDs is prohibited in DC, HI, MA, MI, NJ, NY, RI, WI and certain other cities and counties. Check local laws before purchasing or carrying ECDs."
People only need guns incase someone else has a gun. Stopping production on guns would clear up a lot of gun violence in this world as a huge number of guns are in fact made in the USA. If we stopped making guns then a lot of the guns being smuggled in to t he country wouldnt be there in the first place Then get a paintball gun if you want to target shoot. or goto a designated shooting range or whatever theyre calledAtheists_Pwn
People only need guns incase someone else has a gun. Stopping production on guns would clear up a lot of gun violence in this world as a huge number of guns are in fact made in the USA. If we stopped making guns then a lot of the guns being smuggled in to t he country wouldnt be there in the first place Then get a paintball gun if you want to target shoot. or goto a designated shooting range or whatever theyre called
Atheists_Pwn
Can you elucidate the highlighted text? It doesn't seem to make any sense.
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]People only need guns incase someone else has a gun. Stopping production on guns would clear up a lot of gun violence in this world as a huge number of guns are in fact made in the USA. If we stopped making guns then a lot of the guns being smuggled in to t he country wouldnt be there in the first place Then get a paintball gun if you want to target shoot. or goto a designated shooting range or whatever theyre calledfoxhound_fox
intimidation can be done in many other ways, that wasnt a good point.
stop producing guns anbd round up guns, this way theres far less guns. we make most of the guns, if we stop making them the rest of the world and even the black market are going to have massive shortages.
yes it will, guns will become more scarce, the price of guns will sky rocket and the laws for getting caught with one will be far more strict. since ammo would also be made illegal finding ammo would be very hard, especially since the price would sky rocket.
so what if it cant? your target practice isnt that important. either way, you can make gun like things that can do that, that arent lethal.
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]
People only need guns incase someone else has a gun. Stopping production on guns would clear up a lot of gun violence in this world as a huge number of guns are in fact made in the USA. If we stopped making guns then a lot of the guns being smuggled in to t he country wouldnt be there in the first place Then get a paintball gun if you want to target shoot. or goto a designated shooting range or whatever theyre called
GamerForca
Can you elucidate the highlighted text? It doesn't seem to make any sense.
we make most of the guns, if we stop making guns there would be less guns. Since most of the guns being smuggled into this country came from here in the first place, they wouldnt be able to be smuggled if they werent made at all.such a waste of a life.. very sad
[QUOTE="ex-mortis"]That's ridiculous. Do you know how many perfectly responsible gun owners or collectors there are? Do you really think they're all going to give up their constitutional right to own a legally bought gun? Doubt it. Examples like this are the exception, not the rule. A lot of people are really stupid regarding guns but most are capable of owning them.foxhound_fox
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="ex-mortis"]That's ridiculous. Do you know how many perfectly responsible gun owners or collectors there are? Do you really think they're all going to give up their constitutional right to own a legally bought gun? Doubt it. Examples like this are the exception, not the rule. A lot of people are really stupid regarding guns but most are capable of owning them.Atheists_Pwn
Wat?
Ever heard of shooting sports?
1. intimidation can be done in many other ways, that wasnt a good point.2. stop producing guns anbd round up guns, this way theres far less guns. we make most of the guns, if we stop making them the rest of the world and even the black market are going to have massive shortages.
3. yes it will, guns will become more scarce, the price of guns will sky rocket and the laws for getting caught with one will be far more strict. since ammo would also be made illegal finding ammo would be very hard, especially since the price would sky rocket.
4. so what if it cant? your target practice isnt that important. either way, you can make gun like things that can do that, that arent lethal.
Atheists_Pwn
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]1. intimidation can be done in many other ways, that wasnt a good point.
2. stop producing guns anbd round up guns, this way theres far less guns. we make most of the guns, if we stop making them the rest of the world and even the black market are going to have massive shortages.
3. yes it will, guns will become more scarce, the price of guns will sky rocket and the laws for getting caught with one will be far more strict. since ammo would also be made illegal finding ammo would be very hard, especially since the price would sky rocket.
4. so what if it cant? your target practice isnt that important. either way, you can make gun like things that can do that, that arent lethal.
foxhound_fox
Thank you so much for saving me the trouble. :P
1.They make tasers and pepper spray.1. How does a 90lb woman intimidate a 300 lb brick house of a man trying to attack her? If there are other ways to intimidate, and my point "wasn't good" then please, enlighten me on these "other" methods.
2. Yes, stop making guns. That's the solution. What about black market guns coming from countries we cannot monitor or control? What about home made/back-alley guns made from car locks?
3. You do know that criminals don't buy guns from legal shops right? They get them off the street from gangs.
4. There are many lethal things in this world that are far more dangerous than guns. Cars for instance. Why not ban those? There are not many things that can propel a target round to those distances that can fit into a space of a normal gunpowder-powered gun. Your arguments against guns seem to be very naive and very weak. None of anything that you've presented is a justification for wasting money banning guns and stopping their manufacture, despite the illegal market being non-related to the US/CAN legal gun market.foxhound_fox
2. We can push for international laws banning guns, we can also have better international cooperation.
3. Yes I know that, and thats why I addressed it. Seems like you ignored the point I made that went directly with that.
4. Youre making bad points. Guns are made to kill. Cars are not. Ban things that are meant solely to kill people. Is that hard to understand? I dont know why people think the car anaology is a good one, take 3 seconds and think about it and youll see why it isnt. If you actually read my arguments youd see why what you said about my arguments being weak arent true.
it doesnt matter how many people are responsible. theres no need to have them in the first place..... Atheists_Pwn
As someone who has actually defended myself, in my home, with a firearm, I can assure you that there certainly can be a "need to have them in the first place."
The police are a reactionary force in the US. They show up and collect the evidence. I'm not putting down the police. The vast majority are fine public servants doing a tough job. The courts have ruled that citizens have no right to expect the police to protect them.
Given that you will never eliminate guns in the US, the only logical conclusion is for the law abiding to be free to arm themselves against the criminally violent.
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]it doesnt matter how many people are responsible. theres no need to have them in the first place..... collegeboy64
As someone who has actually defended myself, in my home, with a firearm, I can assure you that there certainly can be a "need to have them in the first place."
The police are a reactionary force in the US. They show up and collect the evidence. I'm not putting down the police. The vast majority are fine public servants doing a tough job. The courts have ruled that citizens have no right to expect the police to protect them.
Given that you will never eliminate guns in the US, the only logical conclusion is for the law abiding to be free to arm themselves against the criminally violent.
There are other ways to defend yourself than with a gun. hopefully you dont make the point that the criminal had the gun... You can eliminate guns in the US, and create jobs in the process.1.They make tasers and pepper spray.[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
1. How does a 90lb woman intimidate a 300 lb brick house of a man trying to attack her? If there are other ways to intimidate, and my point "wasn't good" then please, enlighten me on these "other" methods.
2. Yes, stop making guns. That's the solution. What about black market guns coming from countries we cannot monitor or control? What about home made/back-alley guns made from car locks?
3. You do know that criminals don't buy guns from legal shops right? They get them off the street from gangs.
4. There are many lethal things in this world that are far more dangerous than guns. Cars for instance. Why not ban those? There are not many things that can propel a target round to those distances that can fit into a space of a normal gunpowder-powered gun. Your arguments against guns seem to be very naive and very weak. None of anything that you've presented is a justification for wasting money banning guns and stopping their manufacture, despite the illegal market being non-related to the US/CAN legal gun market.Atheists_Pwn
2. We can push for international laws banning guns, we can also have better international cooperation.
3. Yes I know that, and thats why I addressed it. Seems like you ignored the point I made that went directly with that.
4. Youre making bad points. Guns are made to kill. Cars are not. Ban things that are meant solely to kill people. Is that hard to understand? I dont know why people think the car anaology is a good one, take 3 seconds and think about it and youll see why it isnt. If you actually read my arguments youd see why what you said about my arguments being weak arent true.
1. Tasers aren't available to the public, and pepper spray isn't nearly as intimidating, and it doesn't completely disable a person.
2. That's NEVER going to happen, I don't care what crazy fantasy you're living in. Besides, if that somehow were the case, only the black market would have guns, meaining that people you don't want having guns would be the only ones with them.
3. The price skyrocketing isn't going to make anyone except the people who use firearms as a hobby less likely to get ahold of ammo/guns. Making it impossible to get legally would mean that there would be fewer occurances of mass shootings, but single shot murders (which are the most common gun crimes) would still happen in full force.
4. I'm not going to argue this one, but I think its a good analogy.
[QUOTE="collegeboy64"][QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]it doesnt matter how many people are responsible. theres no need to have them in the first place..... Atheists_Pwn
As someone who has actually defended myself, in my home, with a firearm, I can assure you that there certainly can be a "need to have them in the first place."
The police are a reactionary force in the US. They show up and collect the evidence. I'm not putting down the police. The vast majority are fine public servants doing a tough job. The courts have ruled that citizens have no right to expect the police to protect them.
Given that you will never eliminate guns in the US, the only logical conclusion is for the law abiding to be free to arm themselves against the criminally violent.
There are other ways to defend yourself than with a gun. hopefully you dont make the point that the criminal had the gun... You can eliminate guns in the US, and create jobs in the process.Please provide even the broadest outline of your plan to eliminate guns. Keep in mind that the fed govt keeps no firearms registry of even the legal guns in this country. In other words, since I live in a state that doesn't require registration, no one knows just exactly how many guns I own.
One other fun fact. Best estimate is that there are over 250 million legally owned firearms in the US. No one knows how many illegally possessed/owned guns there are.
In my particular situation the guy was drunk and using a 2x4 to try to bust off the door knob of my house. I went out a different door and confronted him with a loaded pistol in my hand. The guy dropped the 2x4 and literally pissed down his own leg. I made him lay face down on the ground till the sheriff got there. Dude had a long criminal record, including violent offenses.
1. obvious solution = make them available. But... they are available... If you arent intimidated by pepper spray then get sprayed, and you will be.1. Tasers aren't available to the public, and pepper spray isn't nearly as intimidating, and it doesn't completely disable a person.
2. That's NEVER going to happen, I don't care what crazy fantasy you're living in. Besides, if that somehow were the case, only the black market would have guns, meaining that people you don't want having guns would be the only ones with them.
3. The price skyrocketing isn't going to make anyone except the people who use firearms as a hobby less likely to get ahold of ammo/guns. Making it impossible to get legally would mean that there would be fewer occurances of mass shootings, but single shot murders (which are the most common gun crimes) would still happen in full force.
4. I'm not going to argue this one, but I think its a good analogy.
Guppy507
2. It can very well happen. Theres no fantasy, we already have a lot of international laws. They wouldnt have guns because the guns are originally made in the "white" market.
3. Ok? I dont care if they cant get ahold of them. It also makes criminals less likely to get them because of the price, and ammo would be very expensive so you cant just shoot anyone. Our gun problem is directly tied to how the black market and the white market act together. They are both the problem. Simple solutions ftl.
4. Its not, thats why you wont argue it.
1.They make tasers and pepper spray.2. We can push for international laws banning guns, we can also have better international cooperation.
3. Yes I know that, and thats why I addressed it. Seems like you ignored the point I made that went directly with that.
4. Youre making bad points. Guns are made to kill. Cars are not. Ban things that are meant solely to kill people. Is that hard to understand? I dont know why people think the car anaology is a good one, take 3 seconds and think about it and youll see why it isnt. If you actually read my arguments youd see why what you said about my arguments being weak arent true.
Atheists_Pwn
Please provide even the broadest outline of your plan to eliminate guns. Keep in mind that the fed govt keeps no firearms registry of even the legal guns in this country. In other words, since I live in a state that doesn't require registration, no one knows just exactly how many guns I own.One other fun fact. Best estimate is that there are over 250 million legally owned firearms in the US. No one knows how many illegally possessed/owned guns there are.In my particular situation the guy was drunk and using a 2x4 to try to bust off the door knob of my house. I went out a different door and confronted him with a loaded pistol in my hand. The guy dropped the 2x4 and literally pissed down his own leg. I made him lay face down on the ground till the sheriff got there. Dude had a long criminal record, including violent offenses.collegeboy641. You just need people to round them up from anyone who is registered, anyone who has a record of using a gun needs to be checked as well. I know this is unconstitutional, but keep in mind that i dont care. I dont think the constitution is infallible. 2. Is that an attempt to start an argument from ignorance? 3. He had a 2x4, a gun wasnt needed. Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.
[QUOTE="konvikt_17"][QUOTE="Dark__Link"]Stupid father, stupid mother, and stupid child. The stupid child was the least deserving, though... so this is a shame. :(Dark__Link
how is the child stupid?
she mistook a real gun for a wii controller that looks just like a gun
The real gun weighs over a pound. The toy gun weighs a few ounces. Even a toddler can differentiate between differently weighted objects.Also what kind of game requires you to point a toy gun at yourself.
foxhound_fox
2. If the majority of the nations agree to anti gun laws, then the ones who dont should face penalties.
3. Nope. Guns are made to kill people. They were made as a weapon exclusively. Theres no way around it, the only thing you are doing is making bad points. You dont need lethal guns to target practice. If you dont need lethal guns to target practice then why defend LETHAL GUNS to target practice? Dogmatism perhaps? I dont know.
4. Anything can be used as a weapon. Ban things that are made to be weapons in the first place. Cars are meant for transportation. The car analogy cannot be made to be a good analogy. sorry, next. (You havent refuted anything...)
5. Yes getting rid of all guns would solve the problem of having guns. Even having a few scarce guns would be better. The price would be incredibly high for both the gun and the ammo so the usage would go down. Is it ok for someone to own a nucelar weapon? Even if you know they wont use it? Lets assume the radiation is contained. Its ok if they use other less effective home made things. Because, they are less effective, and far far less lethal.
1. obvious solution = make them available. But... they are available... If you arent intimidated by pepper spray then get sprayed, and you will be.
2. It can very well happen. Theres no fantasy, we already have a lot of international laws. They wouldnt have guns because the guns are originally made in the "white" market.
3. Ok? I dont care if they cant get ahold of them. It also makes criminals less likely to get them because of the price, and ammo would be very expensive so you cant just shoot anyone. Our gun problem is directly tied to how the black market and the white market act together. They are both the problem. Simple solutions ftl.
4. Its not, thats why you wont argue it.
Atheists_Pwn
1. Making them available would be just as much of a problem, if not more than guns. It's a much quieter way to murder someone. Gunshots are very loud, taser + stabbing while they're incapacitated is quieter. Also, if you spray a man charging you with a knife with pepper spray, they can keep charging at you. How can a can of spray possibly be more intimidating than lethal force? :|
2. Yes, they're made legally, and they're NEVER NOT going to be made legally. People that want to get ahold of them are NEVER NOT going to be able to do so. No anti-gun laws are going to change this. It's just a crazy ideal.
3. If a person is going as far as to kill someone, they're going to kill them, gun or not. They're going to spend a fortune on getting a gun illegally. If they were going to murder someone with a knife, they would do that even if they could get a gun for cheap. The best you can hope for is gun crimes decrease, and other weapon crimes increase to make up for the fewer gun crimes. People will be murdered either way, so why not let the public have a legal gun for hunting, sporting, or self-defense?
4. That's his argument, not mine, that's why I'm not arguing it.
[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]Please provide even the broadest outline of your plan to eliminate guns. Keep in mind that the fed govt keeps no firearms registry of even the legal guns in this country. In other words, since I live in a state that doesn't require registration, no one knows just exactly how many guns I own.One other fun fact. Best estimate is that there are over 250 million legally owned firearms in the US. No one knows how many illegally possessed/owned guns there are.In my particular situation the guy was drunk and using a 2x4 to try to bust off the door knob of my house. I went out a different door and confronted him with a loaded pistol in my hand. The guy dropped the 2x4 and literally pissed down his own leg. I made him lay face down on the ground till the sheriff got there. Dude had a long criminal record, including violent offenses.Atheists_Pwn1. You just need people to round them up from anyone who is registered, anyone who has a record of using a gun needs to be checked as well. I know this is unconstitutional, but keep in mind that i dont care. I dont think the constitution is infallible.
2. Is that an attempt to start an argument from ignorance?
3. He had a 2x4, a gun wasnt needed. Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.
My point about the 250 million legally owned guns, and the unknown number of illegally possessed guns was to illustrate that rounding up guns in this country is a fools errand. But, if you don't give a crap about the constitution, then just form a brute squad and start kicking in doors till you've found them all. Anyone that objects gets sent to prison without a trial.
By confronting the intruder with a gun I was able to subdue him without doing any physical harm to him. If I had done as you suggest, I'm pretty sure, given this guys record, that I would almost certainly had to taser or pepper spray him. Are you advocating doing physical harm over non-violence ?
Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.Atheists_Pwn
Again, tasers can be just as, if not more convenient for killing people than guns. Why allow tasers to be legal and not guns? Now you're being hypocritical.
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.Guppy507
Again, tasers can be just as, if not more convenient for killing people than guns. Why allow tasers to be legal and not guns? Now you're being hypocritical.
Like I said before, lethal tasers are absolutely not available to the public. Special grade LTL tasers are designed for home defense and personal security. I don't doubt for a second someone proficient in electronics can mod it to be lethal, but if you're caught with something like that, you'll likely get fined, possibly incarcerated.
1. You just need people to round them up from anyone who is registered, anyone who has a record of using a gun needs to be checked as well. I know this is unconstitutional, but keep in mind that i dont care. I dont think the constitution is infallible.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]Please provide even the broadest outline of your plan to eliminate guns. Keep in mind that the fed govt keeps no firearms registry of even the legal guns in this country. In other words, since I live in a state that doesn't require registration, no one knows just exactly how many guns I own.One other fun fact. Best estimate is that there are over 250 million legally owned firearms in the US. No one knows how many illegally possessed/owned guns there are.In my particular situation the guy was drunk and using a 2x4 to try to bust off the door knob of my house. I went out a different door and confronted him with a loaded pistol in my hand. The guy dropped the 2x4 and literally pissed down his own leg. I made him lay face down on the ground till the sheriff got there. Dude had a long criminal record, including violent offenses.collegeboy64
2. Is that an attempt to start an argument from ignorance?
3. He had a 2x4, a gun wasnt needed. Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.
My point about the 250 million legally owned guns, and the unknown number of illegally possessed guns was to illustrate that rounding up guns in this country is a fools errand. But, if you don't give a crap about the constitution, then just form a brute squad and start kicking in doors till you've found them all. Anyone that objects gets sent to prison without a trial.
By confronting the intruder with a gun I was able to subdue him without doing any physical harm to him. If I had done as you suggest, I'm pretty sure, given this guys record, that I would almost certainly had to taser or pepper spray him. Are you advocating doing physical harm over non-violence ?
Find the legal guns through tracking people who have licenses. Anyone who has a history of gun crime should be searched. Just because I dont care about the constitution does not mean I think brute force and "squad" terrorism are good options. You could have done the same with a nonlethal weapon, and if you used it, you still wouldnt have really harmed him. If you have to use pepper spray or tasers to protect yourself, then its ok.[QUOTE="Guppy507"]
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.ex-mortis
Again, tasers can be just as, if not more convenient for killing people than guns. Why allow tasers to be legal and not guns? Now you're being hypocritical.
Like I said before, lethal tasers are absolutely not available to the public. Special grade LTL tasers are designed for home defense and personal security. I don't doubt for a second someone proficient in electronics can mod it to be lethal, but if you're caught with something like that, you'll likely get fined, possibly incarcerated.
Does anyone think I want lethal tasers on the streets? Hopefully not. If anyone thinks that they are clearly not comprehending what im saying.[QUOTE="Guppy507"]
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.ex-mortis
Again, tasers can be just as, if not more convenient for killing people than guns. Why allow tasers to be legal and not guns? Now you're being hypocritical.
Like I said before, lethal tasers are absolutely not available to the public. Special grade LTL tasers are designed for home defense and personal security. I don't doubt for a second someone proficient in electronics can mod it to be lethal, but if you're caught with something like that, you'll likely get fined, possibly incarcerated.
Even an average taser can be used to kill a person. Taze them, and walk up with a knife after they're incapacitated. If you're trying to kill someone, that can be even more convenient than pointing a gun and shooting.[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]My point about the 250 million legally owned guns, and the unknown number of illegally possessed guns was to illustrate that rounding up guns in this country is a fools errand. But, if you don't give a crap about the constitution, then just form a brute squad and start kicking in doors till you've found them all. Anyone that objects gets sent to prison without a trial.
By confronting the intruder with a gun I was able to subdue him without doing any physical harm to him. If I had done as you suggest, I'm pretty sure, given this guys record, that I would almost certainly had to taser or pepper spray him. Are you advocating doing physical harm over non-violence ?
AtheistsPwn
Find the legal guns through tracking people who have licenses. Anyone who has a history of gun crime should be searched. Just because I dont care about the constitution does not mean I think brute force and "squad" terrorism are good options. You could have done the same with a nonlethal weapon, and if you used it, you still wouldnt have really harmed him. If you have to use pepper spray or tasers to protect yourself, then its ok.
Look, the point of intimidation is to invoke fear in your enemy. What are you more afraid of; a spray that can temporarily incapacitate you, or a pistol perfectly capable of killing you? The fact that he managed to apprehend the criminal without causing any harm to him or himself is better than having to cause physical harm. The object in this context is fear, not firepower.
Even an average taser can be used to kill a person. Taze them, and walk up with a knife after they're incapacitated. If you're trying to kill someone, that can be even more convenient than pointing a gun and shooting.Guppy507
Well of course, but that's highly illegal, and definitely not necessary. Do you think you'd get away free of charge if you gave an officer a report like this: "A drunk man came to my house trying to break my door down with clear hostile intent. I opened the door and fired a taser at him, completely stunning him. I then proceeded to stick him in the back with a knife while he was down, just to be sure." Of course unless you mean it's the criminal that's using the taser, in which case I have to ask why would a criminal carry around a taser instead of a gun, since we're talking about banning the purchasing of guns legally.
[QUOTE="collegeboy64"][QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] 1. You just need people to round them up from anyone who is registered, anyone who has a record of using a gun needs to be checked as well. I know this is unconstitutional, but keep in mind that i dont care. I dont think the constitution is infallible.
2. Is that an attempt to start an argument from ignorance?
3. He had a 2x4, a gun wasnt needed. Pepper spray or a taser would suffice.Atheists_Pwn
My point about the 250 million legally owned guns, and the unknown number of illegally possessed guns was to illustrate that rounding up guns in this country is a fools errand. But, if you don't give a crap about the constitution, then just form a brute squad and start kicking in doors till you've found them all. Anyone that objects gets sent to prison without a trial.
By confronting the intruder with a gun I was able to subdue him without doing any physical harm to him. If I had done as you suggest, I'm pretty sure, given this guys record, that I would almost certainly had to taser or pepper spray him. Are you advocating doing physical harm over non-violence ?
Find the legal guns through tracking people who have licenses. Anyone who has a history of gun crime should be searched. Just because I dont care about the constitution does not mean I think brute force and "squad" terrorism are good options. You could have done the same with a nonlethal weapon, and if you used it, you still wouldnt have really harmed him. If you have to use pepper spray or tasers to protect yourself, then its ok.There is no such thing as federally licensed gun ownership. The vast majority of the states do not license gun owners. Therefore the vast majority of the currently legal firearms owners, whom you wish to convert in to criminals, are not known by the govt. How are you going to confiscate all these legally owned firearms if you do not know where to look for them.
And anyone with a history of gun crime is already banned from owning a firearm. Convicted felons lose their second amendment rights.
Please name for me the non-firearm weapon that would make this 6 ft 3 in 260 pound piece of human debris piss his pants when confronted with it.
[Quote="AtheistsPwn"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]
Find the legal guns through tracking people who have licenses. Anyone who has a history of gun crime should be searched. Just because I dont care about the constitution does not mean I think brute force and "squad" terrorism are good options. You could have done the same with a nonlethal weapon, and if you used it, you still wouldnt have really harmed him. If you have to use pepper spray or tasers to protect yourself, then its ok.ex-mortis
Look, the point of intimidation is to invoke fear in your enemy. What are you more afraid of; a spray that can temporarily incapacitate you, or a pistol perfectly capable of killing you? The fact that he managed to apprehend the criminal without causing any harm to him or himself is better than having to cause physical harm. The object in this context is fear, not firepower.
Even an average taser can be used to kill a person. Taze them, and walk up with a knife after they're incapacitated. If you're trying to kill someone, that can be even more convenient than pointing a gun and shooting.Guppy507
Well of course, but that's highly illegal, and definitely not necessary. Do you think you'd get away free of charge if you gave an officer a report like this: "A drunk man came to my house trying to break my door down with clear hostile intent. I opened the door and fired a taser at him, completely stunning him. I then proceeded to stick him in the back with a knife while he was down, just to be sure." Of course unless you mean it's the criminal that's using the taser, in which case I have to ask why would a criminal carry around a taser instead of a gun, since we're talking about banning the purchasing of guns legally.
pepper spray is intimidating, and if they goto attack you, it doesnt really matter if theyre scared or not. theyre going to be disabled without any real harm done.Find the legal guns through tracking people who have licenses. Anyone who has a history of gun crime should be searched. Just because I dont care about the constitution does not mean I think brute force and "squad" terrorism are good options. You could have done the same with a nonlethal weapon, and if you used it, you still wouldnt have really harmed him. If you have to use pepper spray or tasers to protect yourself, then its ok.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]
My point about the 250 million legally owned guns, and the unknown number of illegally possessed guns was to illustrate that rounding up guns in this country is a fools errand. But, if you don't give a crap about the constitution, then just form a brute squad and start kicking in doors till you've found them all. Anyone that objects gets sent to prison without a trial.
By confronting the intruder with a gun I was able to subdue him without doing any physical harm to him. If I had done as you suggest, I'm pretty sure, given this guys record, that I would almost certainly had to taser or pepper spray him. Are you advocating doing physical harm over non-violence ?
collegeboy64
There is no such thing as federally licensed gun ownership. The vast majority of the states do not license gun owners. Therefore the vast majority of the currently legal firearms owners, whom you wish to convert in to criminals, are not known by the govt. How are you going to confiscate all these legally owned firearms if you do not know where to look for them.
And anyone with a history of gun crime is already banned from owning a firearm. Convicted felons lose their second amendment rights.
Please name for me the non-firearm weapon that would make this 6 ft 3 in 260 pound piece of human debris piss his pants when confronted with it.
we dont need a federal one, we can just look at all the state licenses. Anyone who has a record of buying a gun could get checked as well. I dont seek to make them criminals at all. Taking away their guns does not mean they are going to be fined or put in jail or anything. Indeed, which is why we need to stop making guns, so that the black market cant get ahold of them. i dont care if they "piss their pants" or not.[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Even an average taser can be used to kill a person. Taze them, and walk up with a knife after they're incapacitated. If you're trying to kill someone, that can be even more convenient than pointing a gun and shooting.ex-mortis
Well of course, but that's highly illegal, and definitely not necessary. Do you think you'd get away free of charge if you gave an officer a report like this: "A drunk man came to my house trying to break my door down with clear hostile intent. I opened the door and fired a taser at him, completely stunning him. I then proceeded to stick him in the back with a knife while he was down, just to be sure." Of course unless you mean it's the criminal that's using the taser, in which case I have to ask why would a criminal carry around a taser instead of a gun, since we're talking about banning the purchasing of guns legally.
I was referring to using a taser to murder somebody.
He says that tasers are a better alternative for self-defense because they're not lethal, but they're effective. If used like that to murder someone, it's no better than a gun like he says it is.
[QUOTE="ex-mortis"]
[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Even an average taser can be used to kill a person. Taze them, and walk up with a knife after they're incapacitated. If you're trying to kill someone, that can be even more convenient than pointing a gun and shooting.Guppy507
Well of course, but that's highly illegal, and definitely not necessary. Do you think you'd get away free of charge if you gave an officer a report like this: "A drunk man came to my house trying to break my door down with clear hostile intent. I opened the door and fired a taser at him, completely stunning him. I then proceeded to stick him in the back with a knife while he was down, just to be sure." Of course unless you mean it's the criminal that's using the taser, in which case I have to ask why would a criminal carry around a taser instead of a gun, since we're talking about banning the purchasing of guns legally.
I was referring to using a taser to murder somebody.
He says that tasers are a better alternative for self-defense because they're not lethal, but they're effective. If used like that to murder someone, it's no better than a gun like he says it is.
You can murder someone with anything. You cant remove all murder. But you can remove tools that are solely used for killing.[QUOTE="Guppy507"][QUOTE="ex-mortis"]
Well of course, but that's highly illegal, and definitely not necessary. Do you think you'd get away free of charge if you gave an officer a report like this: "A drunk man came to my house trying to break my door down with clear hostile intent. I opened the door and fired a taser at him, completely stunning him. I then proceeded to stick him in the back with a knife while he was down, just to be sure." Of course unless you mean it's the criminal that's using the taser, in which case I have to ask why would a criminal carry around a taser instead of a gun, since we're talking about banning the purchasing of guns legally.
Atheists_Pwn
I was referring to using a taser to murder somebody.
He says that tasers are a better alternative for self-defense because they're not lethal, but they're effective. If used like that to murder someone, it's no better than a gun like he says it is.
You can murder someone with anything. You cant remove all murder. But you can remove tools that are solely used for killing.Then why the **** do you support tasers, but not guns?
And guns aren't used solely for killing, kthxbai.
not nintendo's fault. its the parents. why would u leave a gun in a living room. its like the sacred family spot in my house
damn I can why she didnt no but its the step dad foughtYou probably already heard about this... if not...
Fatal shot to abdomen
Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan, a Tennessee girl, aged 3, accidentally killed herself on Sunday night, according to local police in Wilson County. The incident allegedly occurred after she mistook a gun for a Wii controller.
Investigators claim that the girl's stepfather, Douglas Cronberger, had left a semi-automatic weapon on the living room table, and that the child had mistaken it for a Nintendo Wii controller. The child is then said to have fatally shot herself in the abdomen. She was rushed to hospital, but pronounced dead the same night.
Pictured: Genuine gun on top, compared to Wii peripheral on bottom (WSMV)
The stepfather claims he was asleep at the time of the incident, according to authorities. The stepfather also claims the child's mother, Tina AnnCronberger, was in the room with the child at the time of the incident.
The mother has told authorities the girl might have thought she was playing with a Nintendo Wii controller that resembled a gun. According to the stepfather, the gun was out because he had heard a prowler and gotten the gun out earlier that evening. He then left the gun on the table in the living room. The gun is apparently a .380 caliber semi automatic handgun.
The child had been playing a Wii game. The game's controller, according to authorities, was shaped like a gun that looked very similar to the real handgun. The authorities claim the girl "pulled the gun off the table and it went off."
No charges have been filed in the case.
We advise parents concerned about their child's safety regarding Wii hardware to consult Nintendo's Wii safety page.
aka_aj03
You can murder someone with anything. You cant remove all murder. But you can remove tools that are solely used for killing.[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="Guppy507"]
I was referring to using a taser to murder somebody.
He says that tasers are a better alternative for self-defense because they're not lethal, but they're effective. If used like that to murder someone, it's no better than a gun like he says it is.
Guppy507
Then why the **** do you support tasers, but not guns?
And guns aren't used solely for killing, kthxbai.
I support tasers, because they arent lethal weapons. Yes they are. They are made with the intent of causing fatal injuries or the threat of it. If target practice is what youre concerned with, either get a simulation or a nonlethal gun.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment