THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Johnny C on 12 Feb 2008, 13:28
-
n/t (http://www.geekologie.com/2008/02/i_dont_know_about_this_the_tas.php)
-
Don't tase me Bro!
-
Would a taser shotgun effectively tase an entire crowd?
-
I am unintimidated as my Taser Proof Jacket (http://www.geekologie.com/2007/11/man_files_patent_for_taserproo.php) is already on order. Now I can speak foreign languages in Canadian airports without being fucking killed.
-
...What the hell?
Why is there a need for a taser-rifle?
I don't get it! Why is America (...the world) so fucked up??
...That was a rhetorial question.
-
I'm going to wait for the sawed-off version of this.
-
I think "unnecessary" applies more to this than anything in the history of ever
-
Tell me this thing's a joke. I mean, the promotional video didn't include any footage of the device in action, so maybe it's a hoax.
-
Guys, of course it's a joke. Notice no moving shots of the rifle since it's easier to shop that way. Also, that straight up just wouldn't work as a taser.
-
ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TASER_International). If this is a joke it's a pretty (http://www2.taser.com/Pages/default.aspx) elaborate (http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERX12.aspx) one.
-
Oh crap it is not a joke. I have to take the law more seriously now. I do not want to be pumped full of electricity.
Proprietary new patent-pending Radial Ammunition Key technology prevents the system from accepting lethal 12 gauge rounds, eliminating the possibility of loading lethal ammunition during high stress situations.
-
Well, they can't say "non-lethal" anymore, because people have been killed by tasers. That would be false-advertising!
-
I really do feel safer now.
-
While taser guns are not funny, newscasters volunteering to get tasered is funny.
-
Well, they can't say "non-lethal" anymore, because people have been killed by tazers. That would be false-advertising!
Eh, you still have to agree that their track record is better than that of full on firearms.
-
Being as a taser would be useless in the zombie apocalypse for dealing with zombies, I'm am in no way interested in them or their shotgun form, which seems like a useless waste of resources that could be better spent*. That said, with tags like "less-lethal" or "non-lethal" it seems police forces are using advances in taser technology as free license to go ahead and use them whether truly necessary or not. I mean, what could happen right? Not like its gonna kill the guy**.
*See building an actual shotgun.
**Probably not kill him, anyway.
-
Don't tase me Bro!
You. Off my Internet.
-
Taser... shotgun? (http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/NapoleontheClown/handjob.gif)
-
Tommy, I will end you.
But I'll make sure to use a less-lethal weapon so people won't be scared.
-
ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TASER_International). If this is a joke it's a pretty (http://www2.taser.com/Pages/default.aspx) elaborate (http://www2.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERX12.aspx) one.
Hold me.
-
I've read some pretty interesting stuff about how taser technology basically just encourages police and security guards to use vastly higher levels of casual violence.
I'm failing to really grasp the tactical purpose of this weapon. Do you turn the firehoses on the crowd first, then pump some of these in, turning the whole load into one spasming heap?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/kauhornz/karma-stunguna.gif)
-
this is worse
http://www2.taser.com/products/consumers/Pages/C2.aspx
now in FOUR designer colours and patterns!
-
Heh, I refuse to leave your internet and instead sig-quote you within mine.
-
Awesome, now I can put something on my bedside gun rack besides my shotgun
-
Guys, in case you ever want to know what to get me for Christmas.
(https://store.nexternal.com/tasermerch/images/c2_metallic_pink3.jpg)
-
Tommy you're so dirty sometimes.
-
I swear that's an epilator.
Hey man, what I enjoy attaching to my me-zone is my business and my business alone.
Too Much?
-
The shotgun is just the delivery system. It's not fundamentally different from regular Tasers. In the shell is a complete Taser, battery, probes, wires and all. Basically, the Taser shotgun shoots an entire, tiny Taser at you instead of just the probes. The advantage is a slightly longer range and no wires. It comes out of a shotgun because they need a big barrel. Also, I guess it's pretty damn intimidating. They already have special rubber slugs and beanbag shells for shotguns.
Luckily, it's pretty damn expensive, so I doubt the police will be using it against citizens for fun, like they do regular Tasers.
Now, who trusts the police to make sure that their shotguns are loaded with Taser shells rather than 00 buck?
-
Now, who trusts the police to make sure that their shotguns are loaded with Taser shells rather than 00 buck?
The slightly worrying thing is the system is actually designed not to accept regular shotgun shells. Which can only mean that this has actually happened. I can see the scene clearly in my head.
*BOOM*
*CLICK*
*BOOM*
*CLICK*
*BOOM*
"Oh wait that wasn't a beanbag. Poop."
-
I think the idea is actually more along the lines of lowest-common-denominator thinking. Like how a lot of police forces use Glocks because there is no safety other than one that is de-activated while pulling the trigger. Which, incidentally, can get set off if you get a shirt tail or something stuck in the trigger guard. And how some lockable doors will unlock when the knob is turned from the inside, in case someone is unable to remember how to turn a fucking lock. I have actually seen some of those that will unlock from both sides with the knob turn, which makes me wonder: What is the point?
I don't find it all that worrying, though I do agree that tasers encourage more casual violence, as hitting someone in the head with a nightstick makes the violence and damage somewhat more immediate and visible. I think the idea behind the taser shotgun was that people were getting killed by beanbag rounds, which can end up going like frizbees, and while you are supposed to shoot at parts where there are no vitals, police marksmanship isn't outstanding in any situation, much less where people might fight back, and they are likely to forget that, or think it doesn't really matter.
-
In the shell is a complete Taser, battery, probes, wires and all. Basically, the Taser shotgun shoots an entire, tiny Taser at you instead of just the probes.
This is why I thought it was a joke! That's got to be, like, incredibly ridiculously expensive, hasn't it?
I see the 'better than beanbags/rubbers' argument, but I'd really like to know the effects of a headshot. That is really the main weakness of rubber bullets; that they can kill with a good knock on the noggin. If these would be so kind as to bounce off of your scalp with just a scratch, I'd be a little more inclined to not call them absurd.
-
How much do they weigh, and how fast do they go? Concussive force is the problem with beanbags and rubber bullets.
-
I figure the dude in question decided that a smaller Taser just didn't make his dick feel big enough.
-
The shotgun is just the delivery system. It's not fundamentally different from regular Tasers. In the shell is a complete Taser, battery, probes, wires and all. Basically, the Taser shotgun shoots an entire, tiny Taser at you instead of just the probes. The advantage is a slightly longer range and no wires. It comes out of a shotgun because they need a big barrel. Also, I guess it's pretty damn intimidating. They already have special rubber slugs and beanbag shells for shotguns.
Quoted for truth. I'm betting there's actually two big reasons for why it's a shotgun: 1st reason: I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the real goal isn't so much a taser shotgun so much as it is a semi-automatic taser with decent range for riot control purposes. 2nd reason: Like Dennis said, shotguns have a big bore. They're great for less-lethal rounds because they're chambered for bulky, heavy ammunition but actually fire at relatively low velocities, making them perfect for a high volume but lightweight round that's designed to travel too slow to kill anyone but still travel a decent distance. I'm sure if they had the ability to make a semi-automatic pistol effective taser they'd be thrilled, apply for a patent and start making money hats, but in the meantime the shotgun would be the logical choice.
That said, I think tasers are kind of stupid. I'm generally of the opinion that if you're not willing to kill someone over something then the situation probably is not that big of a deal to begin with.
-
I'm generally of the opinion that if you're not willing to kill someone over something then the situation probably is not that big of a deal to begin with.
See, what bothers me about this statement is not the sentiment that there is no need for non-lethal force, but what it might imply about your willingness to kill.
If you are mugging me for the fifteen dollars and two bus tokens I have in my pocket, well, I'll be mighty pissed but I wouldn't kill you over it.
Boggle, however, is a very big deal to me.
-
The shotgun is just the delivery system. It's not fundamentally different from regular Tasers. In the shell is a complete Taser, battery, probes, wires and all. Basically, the Taser shotgun shoots an entire, tiny Taser at you instead of just the probes. The advantage is a slightly longer range and no wires. It comes out of a shotgun because they need a big barrel. Also, I guess it's pretty damn intimidating. They already have special rubber slugs and beanbag shells for shotguns.
Quoted for truth. I'm betting there's actually two big reasons for why it's a shotgun: 1st reason: I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the real goal isn't so much a taser shotgun so much as it is a semi-automatic taser with decent range for riot control purposes. 2nd reason: Like Dennis said, shotguns have a big bore. They're great for less-lethal rounds because they're chambered for bulky, heavy ammunition but actually fire at relatively low velocities, making them perfect for a high volume but lightweight round that's designed to travel too slow to kill anyone but still travel a decent distance. I'm sure if they had the ability to make a semi-automatic pistol effective taser they'd be thrilled, apply for a patent and start making money hats, but in the meantime the shotgun would be the logical choice.
That said, I think tasers are kind of stupid. I'm generally of the opinion that if you're not willing to kill someone over something then the situation probably is not that big of a deal to begin with.
See, this is what makes me worried that weapons like this will be the things we get shot with if shit goes completely down the tubes and we end up with a police state. I can't think of any better way of capturing "enemies of the state" in some dystopic Brazil or V-for-Vendetta world than busting down the door and shooting them with one of these. It plays into the psychological-breakdown scenario too well and it unnerves me slightly.
I probably should not have read that manual the CIA used for interrogator training.
-
There's something wrong with me.
Everyone else is arguing the ethics of this weapon (a less-lethal weapon is STILL a weapon); namely the fact that while shooting a normal shotgun shell at someone is completely out of line (even if it is "just" rock salt), shooting a miniature tazer is in that EXTRA muddy section of ethics.
Me? I saw this and immediately thought of Bioshock's shotgun with lightning bullets. Meaning this shotgun would be great for attacking Big Daddys.
-
I actually thought the same thing at first, but I had the sense to pretend like I hadn't. Oh shit.
-
I, for one, could not be more excited.
what with this, and robots learning to lie, i might actually live to see the end of humanity as we know it.
-
So it fires a contained slug with 3 (whatever the things fletchers make) thingies with some spikes in the tip and when it hits it puts a current through the metal bits?
I guess I am quite alone in thinking this is an awesome idea. Much rather get hit with that than a real shotgun-buckshot-shellcontents-thingies, Still gotta hurt like a mu'fucker on impact (bean bag+spikes) and then again when you start getting the whole zappy bit, I want one for shits and giggles.
-
More importantly, from the same website:
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/01/boy_builds_bicycle_entirely_ou.php
-
As a cyclist, all I can say to that is:
"Ow."
-
See, this is what makes me worried that weapons like this will be the things we get shot with if shit goes completely down the tubes and we end up with a police state. I can't think of any better way of capturing "enemies of the state" in some dystopic Brazil or V-for-Vendetta world than busting down the door and shooting them with one of these. It plays into the psychological-breakdown scenario too well and it unnerves me slightly.
I probably should not have read that manual the CIA used for interrogator training.
See, I guess I just find such worries a non-issue because I'm pretty sure that in your average dystopia they'll just go with the much more economical buckshot, AKs and nightsticks. :oops:
-
As a cyclist, all I can say to that is:
"Ow."
Yes. It would make for quite the bumpy ride. Plus, that seat would be terribly uncomfortable (and the possiblity of splinters...yeesh)
-
This kid is ahead of the curve. That bike is taser proof
-
Yes. It would make for quite the bumpy ride.
The fact that he didn't furnish that bike with wooden suspension proves that he simply wasn't trying hard enough. And he could have made tyres out of cork, for goodness sake!
On the other hand, being sixteen years old he probably thinks he's indestructible. He'll learn. Oh ho ho, he'll learn.
-
Yes, the implications of a taser shotgun are... well... unsettling.
On the other hand, they are completely awesome.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/231/reviews/924919_20070820_embed002.jpg)
-
I, for one, could not be more excited.
what with this, and robots learning to lie, i might actually live to see the end of humanity as we know it.
I think you've actually just hit on an appropriate use for this.
-
So it fires a contained slug with 3 (whatever the things fletchers make) thingies with some spikes in the tip and when it hits it puts a current through the metal bits?
I guess I am quite alone in thinking this is an awesome idea. Much rather get hit with that than a real shotgun-buckshot-shellcontents-thingies, Still gotta hurt like a mu'fucker on impact (bean bag+spikes) and then again when you start getting the whole zappy bit, I want one for shits and giggles.
The design is dependent on a secondary set of wires that comes out of the mini taser on impact and attaches elsewhere on the body of the target, so the current has somewhere to go.
-
I think the idea is actually more along the lines of lowest-common-denominator thinking. Like how a lot of police forces use Glocks because there is no safety other than one that is de-activated while pulling the trigger. Which, incidentally, can get set off if you get a shirt tail or something stuck in the trigger guard. And how some lockable doors will unlock when the knob is turned from the inside, in case someone is unable to remember how to turn a fucking lock. I have actually seen some of those that will unlock from both sides with the knob turn, which makes me wonder: What is the point?
Actually, Glocks have three interlocking safety mechanisms, which is two more than traditional handgun design. Glocks are designed such that they will only fire if the trigger is deliberately pulled, which is actually a very good design for police work, since police have uniforms with tucked in shirttails and holsters. If you're going to stick a gun in your waistband--rare, extenuating circumstances aside--you're too stupid to own one. Additionally, the chance that something will happen to wrap around the trigger just right to disable the safeties and pull the trigger while the gun has a round in the chamber is less than the chance that someone will forget to check the manual safety on their gun and either fire it accidentally, or be unable to fire it when they need to.
And doors with interlocked handles are a convenience for door one-way doors that need to stay locked from the outside, like private offices fronting on public areas. As for doors that unlock with a handle on both sides, I've never seen one, but I can imagine that the lock on the door has different settings depending on how the key is turned.
-
Dennis the spikes in the front end would mean no need for wires though innit.
Nice double post.
-
the chance that someone will forget to check the manual safety on their gun and either fire it accidentally, or be unable to fire it when they need to.
When I learned to use a gun I spent like, a month learning to load it, unload it, make safe, check it, use the safety, clear a jam and strip and clean the whole weapon before I was allowed to look at a bullet. I thought this was like, the utmost basic of firearm safety.
Wait, I suppose in America it technically isn't required for you to actually know anything about firearm safety to own a gun is it?
Damn.
-
Nope! You just gotta wait a week. So that proves you got patience or somthin.
-
The waiting period depends on the state.
The problem with the requirements for owning one is that it can very easily become ridiculous. In Australia, it takes about six months and several hundred dollars (other than the cost of the gun), even more if, for some reason, you don't shoot well when you probably haven't ever shot before.
I don't know how many safeties are on the glock, but I do know that they all get disabled when you pull the trigger. When someone gets startled, if their finger is on the trigger, they exert more than enough force to pull the trigger, I have heard of police exams where you have to keep your gun on a target for a long period of time, but partway through, the examiner comes up behind you and fires a blank, a lot of people end up shooting that target. Just imagine what would happen if you shot someone because a car backfired.
Like I said, lowest common denominator, if you are going to carry around a gun, you should be instinctively able to operate everything on it, in the dark, one handed, whatever. Your life could very well depend on it. Even if you aren't carrying it, you should know the gun that well, though you really shouldn't be shooting in the dark for fun, seems like a bad idea.
Normal guns only have one safety? The 1911 has a grip safety, a manual safety, and some companies use a firing pin block safety, although even without one, the gun usually has to be dropped quite a ways directly on the barrel to go off. Besides, you should have the hammer back and safety on, either that or safety off, hammer down on an empty chamber. Those are the two safest ways, while hammer down on a loaded chamber can work, it isn't as safe.
-
All my shooting experience is with bolt-action rifles (L98-A1 and Lee Enfield No.8 ) and break action shotguns. The L98-A1 is an SA-80 with the gas piston removed and a cocking handle attatched to the bolt. It has one safety above the pistol grip. The cocking action is the secondary safety, I suppose. The safety catch on the Lee Enfield makes it impossible to close the breech. If the breech is closed, the weapon is considered live, as far as I remember (long time since I used one). Break action shotguns, of course, you simply carry with the breech open until you want to shoot something.
To be honest, I would think that having to have some level of competence with a weapon as a pre-requisite to owning and using it is kind of a no brainer. I mean, if I wanted to drive I would need to pass a theory test, be taught how to drive, then pass a practical. I would also need to be insured and to have my car inspected for road-worthiness. No one I've ever met considers this unreasonable, and cars aren't engineered specifically to kill people.
Also, if you have such a burning need for a firearm that you cannot wait a couple of months to acquire one, then you probably should not have a gun. Or you should make some friends who are criminals. Up to you really.
-
Here in PA you have to be 21 and pass a background check to own a gun, and pretty much the same for a concealed carry permit.
My Steyr M9-A1 only has the trigger safety, and my taurus .38 special no safety at all. If I pull the trigger it fires. Both these firearms have lockable safety mechanisms that can be activated and deactivated by small keys supplied with the firearms, but those locks are pointless when it comes to carrying the firearm, in which case both are only stopped from firing by pulling the trigger.
I realize there is a lot of anti-firearm sentiment on these forums, but if I'm pointing either of my handguns at someone it means that they're either trying to rob me or gain unlawful entry into my appartment, either way I don't feel bad if I get startled and accidentally discharge a round into the target. After all, I'm the one facing the murder/excessive use of force charges as a result.
-
I don't see requiring that you know how to operate a dangerous machine before you are allowed to own one is anti-gun sentiment.
-
I realize there is a lot of anti-firearm sentiment on these forums, but if I'm pointing either of my handguns at someone it means that they're either trying to rob me or gain unlawful entry into my appartment, either way I don't feel bad if I get startled and accidentally discharge a round into the target.
Jesus Goddamn at least you could call them something other than "the target."
-
Dennis the spikes in the front end would mean no need for wires though innit.
Nice double post.
I did post twice, on two different topics, yes.
As for the second set of electrodes:
Here is Taser's commercial for the XREP. At about 4:15, it shows the second set of electrodes deploying. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aBYtUCSJAmw)
You can't really pass a current through anything if it doesn't have a complete circuit. A Taser isn't effective unless the electrodes cover a significant area of the body, hence the two electrodes fired from a standard Taser, and the second set of electrodes as desc. above.
-
the chance that someone will forget to check the manual safety on their gun and either fire it accidentally, or be unable to fire it when they need to.
When I learned to use a gun I spent like, a month learning to load it, unload it, make safe, check it, use the safety, clear a jam and strip and clean the whole weapon before I was allowed to look at a bullet. I thought this was like, the utmost basic of firearm safety.
Wait, I suppose in America it technically isn't required for you to actually know anything about firearm safety to own a gun is it?
Damn.
I'm just saying, if someone is in danger of accidentally firing a Glock, he is probably in danger of forgetting what position his safety is in, or whether his gun is loaded, or if a round is chambered, with a traditional handgun safety.
Though, yeah, in America, you can walk into a store and buy a shotgun or rifle off the rack and take it home. For a handgun, you need a permit in most states, which typically requires that you pass a safety course.
-
now thats something that will make the world a much better place ;D
-
I don't know how many safeties are on the glock, but I do know that they all get disabled when you pull the trigger. When someone gets startled, if their finger is on the trigger, they exert more than enough force to pull the trigger, I have heard of police exams where you have to keep your gun on a target for a long period of time, but partway through, the examiner comes up behind you and fires a blank, a lot of people end up shooting that target. Just imagine what would happen if you shot someone because a car backfired.
Dude, if your finger is on the trigger, your safety is supposed to be off, regardless of the make of the gun. That is: if your finger is on the trigger, you should be ready to shoot whatever the gun is pointed at. This is the most basic gun safety rule there is.
The mechanical safety of a gun is just a backup to your own safe use of a gun. It is foolish to depend on the safety.
Normal guns only have one safety? The 1911 has a grip safety, a manual safety, and some companies use a firing pin block safety, although even without one, the gun usually has to be dropped quite a ways directly on the barrel to go off. Besides, you should have the hammer back and safety on, either that or safety off, hammer down on an empty chamber. Those are the two safest ways, while hammer down on a loaded chamber can work, it isn't as safe.
Traditionally, a gun has one manual safety. I didn't say anything about "normal" guns. The grip safety of a 1911 is more like the trigger safety of the Glock than a manual safety. It's designed to disengage when you purposefully and properly handle the gun.
-
I'm unclear on what this has to do with the fact that what is supposed to be the safer alternative to firearms is now actually a firearm.
-
Why would you even have a round in the chamber if you weren't going to shoot anything?
-
Why would you have a trigger unless you were planning on pulling it?
Why would you have a gun unless you were planning on using it?
I guess this naturally leads into "Why would you have a Taser shotgun unless you were planning on firing a high-impact electric round at someone?" And then that leads into "Why would you even consider doing that?"
-
I would like a gun for target shooting. Also taking apart and cleaning in an obsessive compulsive fashion to intimidate folks.
-
Might I suggest buying a collection of sauce pumps?
That way, you have the things to take apart and clean in an obsessive-compulsive fashion, and instead of intimidating them you can delight them with a collection of sauces!
-
I don't like most sauces. I like, er, bread sauce, pepper sauce, um...the sauce baked beans comes in?
That's about it.
-
I realize there is a lot of anti-firearm sentiment on these forums, but if I'm pointing either of my handguns at someone it means that they're either trying to rob me or gain unlawful entry into my appartment, either way I don't feel bad if I get startled and accidentally discharge a round into the target.
Jesus Goddamn at least you could call them something other than "the target."
The BG? For Bad Guy?
Guns aren't specifically made for killing, they are made for sending high velocity little pieces of lead, frequently jacketed with metal, toward a target. Just like cars aren't made for killing, they are heavy objects made for moving at pretty high velocities, controllable easily by a human. But I bet you a hell of a lot more people get killed with cars than illegally with guns, even counting the "accidents" that people have with guns.
My dad has a .22 pump gun, he used to use it to kill rabbits, when they tried to eat his crops while he was farming. Food for the table, right? He also has a double-barreled shotgun that we don't know the quality of, or if it is even safe to fire, since it went through a flood and we don't know how old it is. Want to take a guess as to how many times they have been used in a crime while we have possessed them? Or how many times they have even loaded themselves?
For many shooters, shooting is a relaxing experience. It is a discipline requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Basically, yoga with a boom. I read something like that somewhere, wish I could remember where.
Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.
-
What is the purpose of a safety that disengages when the trigger is pulled? I don't know a lot about guns, and so I am totally at a loss for what the safety does if not prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled.
-
Guns aren't specifically made for killing, they are made for sending high velocity little pieces of lead, frequently jacketed with metal, toward a target.
Which kills people. You see, what you're doing is confusing mechanical function with purpose of design. For example, the mechanical function of a camera is to open a little shutter that lets light hit on a roll of photosensitive plastic film that winds by. Yet its purpose is to take images of things. The whole history of the design of firearms has involved the effort to make them into more efficient and deadly combat weapons. Guns can be used for lots of fun, completely non-lethal things, but in my opinion if you ever lose sight of the fact that this is a weapon that is designed to kill people then you're doing it wrong. The same for any weapon.
@Jhocking: it stops the gun going off if you drop it, I suppose.
-
It prevents the gun from firing when dropped, but it takes a good bit of dropping for that to actually happen, the colt SAA (think old western pistol, like in a fistful of dollars, not the good the bad and the ugly, though) was very prone to it, not sure what part of it caused that.
edit: All right, Khar. Look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP and tell me that clunky thing is meant for killing. And yet, that weapon is banned from import into the U.S. as it is claimed to have "No sporting purpose", because the BAFTE wants to make itself seem useful. Many designs were originally for killing, but they frequently get changed for target purposes. You know of the infamous M82 .50 cal rifle, right? That was a long range target rifle for years before the military decided they might have a use for it, after that happened, you got the people claiming that people would use it to shoot down planes in flight (which you couldn't without extreme luck, due to the high speed of a plane, stationary position of the shooter, amount of hits needed, and amount of shots you would get).
-
The BG? For Bad Guy?
You and I both know that the target in question is a living, breathing human being.
But I bet you a hell of a lot more people get killed with cars than illegally with guns, even counting the "accidents" that people have with guns.
Statistics aside for the time being, why even make the distinction? It's more worrying to me that you could conceivably be killed legally with a gun. Beyond that, a car isn't meant to run into anything, so when it does it's not being used for its purpose. When a gun maims or injures someone, it's done its job.
My dad has a .22 pump gun, he used to use it to kill rabbits, when they tried to eat his crops while he was farming. Food for the table, right? He also has a double-barreled shotgun that we don't know the quality of, or if it is even safe to fire, since it went through a flood and we don't know how old it is. Want to take a guess as to how many times they have been used in a crime while we have possessed them? Or how many times they have even loaded themselves?
In the case of a collectible or a rifle in a rural setting, the argument could be easily made that they're necessary for the job, and I'm certainly not arguing that. If you live in the suburbs and for some reason you have a handgun in your home, that's a different story.
For many shooters, shooting is a relaxing experience. It is a discipline requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Basically, yoga with a boom. I read something like that somewhere, wish I could remember where.
I have to voice a significant doubt - and here, if anywhere, is this post's weak point - that there's nothing out there that can equal this experience. For me, I play music, I act, I play video games. On occasion I bike, and on rarer occasions I swim. All of these are, at the end of the day, relaxing experiences for me, requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control and co-ordination in all circumstances. While I don't doubt that shooting is a relaxing experience for folks, I feel that all the energy directed towards firearm culture could be better expended on something constructive rather than destructive.
Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.
This on the other hand is sound. If it's necessary for a handgun to exist then the safety should do its job - namely, make sure the gun isn't fired unless the safety is deliberately disengaged. If that takes some more time, consider that extra incentive to have readily available alternatives.
-
Personally I find one on one single combat with swords, shields, axes and knives provides most of my relaxation needs.
Also sex, and food.
I still enjoy target shooting though. I like blatantly mechanical things and hand-eye co-ordination and loud noises! I'm not sure I'd quite raise it to the level of a spiritual experience.
-
Yep. They're called drop safeties; they're required in states like California.
As far as the whole "They turned the safe alternative to a firearm into a firearm!" thing, I guess I just don't see what the big deal is about as long as it's properly engineered. Tasers aren't really intended to be an alternative to guns so much as they're meant to be an alternative to killing people; a fine distinction to be sure, but it is a meaningful one. Guns do their job extremely well and they're based on a mature, proven technology. If taser firearm could be engineered in such a way as to be as safe as tasers while outperforming them in other categories, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. I guess I just don't see any ethical difference between shooting someone with taser propelled by a CO2 cartridge and a taser propelled by gunpowder provided they're both safely designed.
-
Since when were tasers safe? At best, they're less unsafe.
-
When are tasers an alternative to killing people? Seems to me if there's any situation that really requires the use of a gun, (ie. the criminal has a gun) law enforcement personnel are probably going to shoot the guy anyway. Are you saying that before the advent of tasers people being prats at a political speech, or making a fuss in a university library, would have been shot?
-
Yeesh. You're really quibbling over the safe unsafe target bad guy victim stuff tonight. I get what you're saying; you don't like tasers; I don't really like them either. I'm just saying I don't really see how whether it's a shotgun or not should really matter provided they're both operating within similar parameters.
And yeah Khar, I know what you mean; I said more or less the same thing earlier; If you're not willing to kill someone over it's probably not a big enough deal to go shooting people with anything over. I just thought the "OMG, the taser comes out of a gun now!" part needlessly alarmist, since I don't really think it changes anything.
-
The BG? For Bad Guy?
You and I both know that the target in question is a living, breathing human being.
Yes, and while I don't like the idea of having to do violence, if it is a choice between shooting someone that is trying to rape or kill me or a loved one, and letting it happen, I would try to stop him/her, I would not "shoot to kill", nor would I shoot to wound, I would shoot to live, and keep my loved one(s) alive. Whether the aggressor is still alive afterwards isn't as important.
But I bet you a hell of a lot more people get killed with cars than illegally with guns, even counting the "accidents" that people have with guns.
Statistics aside for the time being, why even make the distinction? It's more worrying to me that you could conceivably be killed legally with a gun. Beyond that, a car isn't meant to run into anything, so when it does it's not being used for its purpose. When a gun maims or injures someone, it's done its job.
If you are killed legally with a gun, it means you are breaking into someone's house/vehicle (in some states), or trying to do something that can be legally responded to with lethal force. Most likely (again), raping or killing. The purpose of the object depends on the person that uses it, it has its own potential, but how said potential is used is completely up to the user.
My dad has a .22 pump gun, he used to use it to kill rabbits, when they tried to eat his crops while he was farming. Food for the table, right? He also has a double-barreled shotgun that we don't know the quality of, or if it is even safe to fire, since it went through a flood and we don't know how old it is. Want to take a guess as to how many times they have been used in a crime while we have possessed them? Or how many times they have even loaded themselves?
In the case of a collectible or a rifle in a rural setting, the argument could be easily made that they're necessary for the job, and I'm certainly not arguing that. If you live in the suburbs and for some reason you have a handgun in your home, that's a different story.
We live in a... not sure, it isn't really suburban, but it isn't urban either, and definitely not rural, it is nice. Why a rifle and not a handgun? Don't believe Lynyrd Skynyrd, handguns are commonly used for target shooting as well. Rifles are more powerful, I would sure as hell rather be facing a guy with a handgun than a guy with a rifle. Course, I would rather not be in a situation where someone will be shooting at me at all.
For many shooters, shooting is a relaxing experience. It is a discipline requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Basically, yoga with a boom. I read something like that somewhere, wish I could remember where.
I have to voice a significant doubt - and here, if anywhere, is this post's weak point - that there's nothing out there that can equal this experience. For me, I play music, I act, I play video games. On occasion I bike, and on rarer occasions I swim. All of these are, at the end of the day, relaxing experiences for me, requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control and co-ordination in all circumstances. While I don't doubt that shooting is a relaxing experience for folks, I feel that all the energy directed towards firearm culture could be better expended on something constructive rather than destructive.
So basically you are saying someone else shouldn't be able to do something because you don't like it?
Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.
This on the other hand is sound. If it's necessary for a handgun to exist then the safety should do its job - namely, make sure the gun isn't fired unless the safety is deliberately disengaged. If that takes some more time, consider that extra incentive to have readily available alternatives.
It probably takes about an eighth of a second. fighting is what happens when something went really wrong somewhere, and you can't get away, at least not without giving up something you aren't willing to give up.
Khar, I find it very peaceful, just about spiritual. I am somewhat odd though.
-
All this aside, if it came down to it I'd still definitely prefer to be shot with a taser shotgun than a regular one.
-
True. I would prefer most to be the one doing the shooting, if I had to take part. I would prefer not taking part though.
-
Yes, and while I don't like the idea of having to do violence, if it is a choice between shooting someone that is trying to rape or kill me or a loved one, and letting it happen, I would try to stop him/her, I would not "shoot to kill", nor would I shoot to wound, I would shoot to live, and keep my loved one(s) alive. Whether the aggressor is still alive afterwards isn't as important.
What if they aren't trying to rape or kill you and you fuck that up? Then someone's dead. Myself and due process disagree with you that the aggressor living is unimportant.
If you are killed legally with a gun, it means you are breaking into someone's house/vehicle (in some states), or trying to do something that can be legally responded to with lethal force. Most likely (again), raping or killing. The purpose of the object depends on the person that uses it, it has its own potential, but how said potential is used is completely up to the user.
I know what killing legally means - I'm wondering why you chose to rule out legal firearm deaths as well. A death from a gun is a death from a gun, whether it was legal or not. It's whether it's necessary or not that's the issue. Also, what other purpose would a gun have been designed for than to shoot stuff and damage it? You can't light an oven with it. It would be unwise to use it to hang paintings. Elvis was able to successfully use one as a television remote but the only button it had was "Off."
We live in a... not sure, it isn't really suburban, but it isn't urban either, and definitely not rural, it is nice. Why a rifle and not a handgun? Don't believe Lynyrd Skynyrd, handguns are commonly used for target shooting as well. Rifles are more powerful, I would sure as hell rather be facing a guy with a handgun than a guy with a rifle. Course, I would rather not be in a situation where someone will be shooting at me at all.
You live outside of an urban setting and you own a rifle, then you probably live in a place with coyotes, deer and the like. Broad generalization, I know, but in that case firearms are useful for defending yourself from non-human attackers (the vast majority of which won't listen to reason), fending off animals which may be a danger to your farm and finding yourself food. You live in the city with a handgun in your drawer, you probably aren't going to be shooting rabbits away from crops any time soon.
So basically you are saying someone else shouldn't be able to do something because you don't like it?
No, I'm saying that it's not the only hobby available and that it providing a Zen-like experience isn't a convincing argument for its purpose and its safety.
In a purely hypothetical scenario, I find that fucking dogs is an activity requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Should I keep fucking dogs, or should I perhaps pursue an alternative path?
It probably takes about an eighth of a second. fighting is what happens when something went really wrong somewhere, and you can't get away, at least not without giving up something you aren't willing to give up.
A fight can take anywhere from ten minutes to an eighth of a second to boil over. You can still make a mistake at any point in that period of time, and that mistake might cost someone else their life.
If the reason you own a gun is so that you won't die if a lunatic fights you, then take some physical, non-lethal self-defense courses. Once again, they require careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. They can also save your life without ending another's.
-
I find that fucking dogs is an activity requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Should I keep fucking dogs, or should I perhaps pursue an alternative path?
If that's what turns you on man.
-
I must admit I do find your mother quite arousing.
-
daaaaaaaaaamn
-
I demand satisfaction sir.
Since you do not like guns we will fight with swords.
You can handle a sword, right?
-
Shouldn't you have suggested a pen? You Brits invented the damn language.
-
Us and the French.
-
And the Germans, technically! And those crazy people who used to live in Italy with psycho emperors!
-
Guns are a pretty serious topic, full of emotions and media spin, they are loud, scary tools(Yes, a gun is a tool).
Saying that a gun is a tool designed solely for the purpose is like saying a hammer is a tool designed solely for the purpose of destroying things. An utter fallacy.
Guns, while capable of being used for killing people, were actually developed to make hunting easier, the same way a bow and arrow can be used to kill people while also used to make hunting easier. Do not confuse this as a denial of the fact that guns were designed to end the lives of living creatures, they were.
Let us continue with the gun = hammer line of thought:
Give a carpenter a hammer and he can build a house. Give someone else the exact same hammer, and he can knock the house down.
A gun, like a hammer, a knife, or a screwdriver is a tool designed by humans to make life easier for humans. Do not confuse the misuse of a tool with it's intended use.
In the hands of the right person, a gun is a tool that can save a human life. In the hands of the wrong person, a gun is a tool that can take a human life. Suggesting that several small bits of metal, plastic and grease are inherently dangerous or "bad" is ignorance in it's purest form. A gun is not a living thing. It cannot jump up of it's own accord and kill anything. The same way a hammer cannot drive a nail if a human doesn't swing it.
Am I suggesting that everyone should have a gun? No, that would be stupid. Some people should be kept very far away from guns. Should I not be allowed to own a gun because someone else would misuse one? No.
As for the "guns = cars," here's what I have to say to that:
A driver's license is permission to drive on public roads. At any age, you can walk into a car dealership and buy any car on any lot for your private use on your private property. At the age of 16(or 18, whatever it is where you live), you get a license to use said car on public roads after passing a written, then practical test. I think this is a fine system. If you want to let people buy guns for their private use on their private property, then give them a license to use them on public property at a set age after passing a written, then practical exam, have at it, I think it would be wonderful and wholly support the idea.
Post Script: If anyone wishes to have a civil, intelligent discussion in reference to guns and/or "gun control," feel free to send me a PM. I'm done here.
-
Guns, while capable of being used for killing people, were actually developed to make hunting easier, the same way a bow and arrow can be used to kill people while also used to make hunting easier. Do not confuse this as a denial of the fact that guns were designed to end the lives of living creatures, they were.
(http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/news_monsmeg.jpg)
OH MY WHAT AN EFFICIENT LOOKING HUNTING WEAPON.
-
Maybe they are hunting a Leviathan?
Ozy, while I appreciate the sentiment that intent behind use is key - see up there where I defend farmers using rifles as deterrents against feral animals and as a means of sustenance - arguing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" sort of begs the question: if people kill people, why give 'em more weapons? I'm willing to tolerate gun ownership as the "right" a developed nation has determined its citizens possess, especially with stringent safety requirements, and I'm certainly in favour of using guns as tools rather than weapons - again, see my farmer example. Tying this back to the topic at hand, the Taser shotgun is not a tool. It is very much a weapon. I am not as concerned about its widespread uses as its potential for abuse, no matter how localized the situation.
-
Things you can do with a gun:
1) Shoot inanimate objects, either causing no harm (targets), damage (wheels of a car or something), or indirectly cause harm or death.
2) Intimidate someone.
3) Wound or kill living creatures.
Things you can do with a hammer:
1) Insert nails.
2) Remove nails.
3) Beat panels and stuff.
4) Join wood and other materials that need to be forced into place.
5) Work metal.
6) Positive destruction (chiseling, etc, destroying a house or a desk isn't a bad thing if it's decrepit).
7) Negative destruction (smash someone's car up, etc).
8
9) Kill or maim a living creature.
There's probably lots of other things you can use hammers for and they're certainly not as easy to threaten or hurt people with (unless you have a war hammer I guess but they're big and extremely short-range).
-
Guns aren't specifically made for killing
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
I'm really sick of this discussion, as I have it in meat life more than enough. Just wanted to point that one out.
-
What if they aren't trying to rape or kill you and you fuck that up? Then someone's dead. Myself and due process disagree with you that the aggressor living is unimportant.
Then I don't shoot them. If I were to use a gun on someone, it means they were almost certainly directing lethal force towards me or mine, what I said is that I would not specifically aim to not kill them, as that would be foolish, hitting the target is tough enough when they are shooting back, much less making a western shoot-it-out-of-their-hands move.
I know what killing legally means - I'm wondering why you chose to rule out legal firearm deaths as well. A death from a gun is a death from a gun, whether it was legal or not. It's whether it's necessary or not that's the issue. Also, what other purpose would a gun have been designed for than to shoot stuff and damage it? You can't light an oven with it. It would be unwise to use it to hang paintings. Elvis was able to successfully use one as a television remote but the only button it had was "Off."
I choose to rule out legal firearm deaths because those are self defense, do you have an issue with someone defending themselves from someone intent on killing them? Yes, they hit things and cause damage to them, what is the problem with that? Paper is people too? What about tin cans? Are you going to stop people from using paper shredders or from smashing tin cans? It all comes down to what you shoot and damage.
You live outside of an urban setting and you own a rifle, then you probably live in a place with coyotes, deer and the like. Broad generalization, I know, but in that case firearms are useful for defending yourself from non-human attackers (the vast majority of which won't listen to reason), fending off animals which may be a danger to your farm and finding yourself food. You live in the city with a handgun in your drawer, you probably aren't going to be shooting rabbits away from crops any time soon.
We don't live out where Coyotes and deer are, we live where there are a few foxes, but we can't legally discharge a firearm in town, so if one comes after our chickens, we would have to just run after it and try to scare it away. Can't even fire off a BB gun in town legally. And again, you discount the possibility of having a gun for self defense against humans. Don't give me some BS line about how if nobody had guns, you wouldn't need to use one. Firstly, you know as well as I do that a determined criminal could find a gun on the black market, no matter what the laws. Secondly, you want a 80 year old grandmother to have to fistfight with a 20-something thug?
No, I'm saying that it's not the only hobby available and that it providing a Zen-like experience isn't a convincing argument for its purpose and its safety.
In a purely hypothetical scenario, I find that fucking dogs is an activity requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Should I keep fucking dogs, or should I perhaps pursue an alternative path?
See, I don't care, just don't do it around me, and don't do it to my dog. Because unlike you, I can mind my own goddamn business. Your hobbies aren't my business, extreme examples (mass murdering, arson, burglary) non-withstanding. edit: Actually... I dunno, the animal might not be consenting, you would have to consider that. I can't say I spend all that much time contemplating the morality of bestiality.
A fight can take anywhere from ten minutes to an eighth of a second to boil over. You can still make a mistake at any point in that period of time, and that mistake might cost someone else their life.
If the reason you own a gun is so that you won't die if a lunatic fights you, then take some physical, non-lethal self-defense courses. Once again, they require careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. They can also save your life without ending another's.
All right, you try to fistfight with two people, both armed with firearms, when they see you from 20 meters away. I will go for cover and my gun. I'll call an ambulance for you too, you will need it. Don't get me wrong, I know that martial arts can defeat someone with a firearm, but you have to be up there touching them, and I wouldn't gamble on that. Go ahead, get martial arts training, but that should just be one tool in your toolchest.
Creep, look higher up on the page. Find my mention of the GSP and the M82. I would say that some bullets are made specifically for killing, but then again, people like to use JHPs for target shooting since they don't penetrate as far into the backstop, and some FMJs will end up going a hell of a lot further than you thought they would.
-
tl;dr
-
Man, how often has anyone here had to defend themselves with lethal force? I'm not asking that rhetorically to argue in a snide sort of way, I'm asking seriously.
I know plenty of people who have needed their seat belts, car/home/health insurance, and even that funny guard to keep you from killing yourself with a cuisinart. I have never, ever, even once had a tangible example of someone I know or have encountered tangentially needing and/or using a firearm for self defense purposes.
By the way, it's the self-defense/responsible user logic that leads to the arms race and the cold war.
-
Nodaisho, a gun is a gun and a gun is a weapon. A weapon is not a tool (exept if you define "weapon" as "tool for killing living things"). The type of ammunition used doesn't change that fundamental fact.
-
By the way, it's the self-defense/responsible user logic that leads to the arms race and the cold war.
I hate to point this out, since I'm really just playing devil's advocate here but... Ever notice how the Cold War ended without the US and Russia nuking eachother? One could make the argument MAD worked until it was no longer needed, as insane as that might sound.
-
No, the only reason MAD 'worked' is that people like this man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov) weren't stupid enough to follow through.
-
I heard the americans were developing some kinda non-lethal 'deathray' type thing, which doesn't injure you at all, just covers your body with excruciating, blinding, paralysing pain.
Any of you guys know anything about that?
-
Yeah, I'm familiar with Petrov, but couldn't one still say that it was the severity of the consequences that made him think twice about following through with things even under orders? I still think the dumbest thing about the Cold War is that we were willing to kill each other over this shit in the first place at all.
As far as deathrays go, not that I'm aware of, unless you count LRAD, which is capable of firing a "beam" of deafening sound that's being put on Navy ships to be used on small unidentified vessels who are getting too close to ships and don't return hailing. Basically, they just center it on the ship in question and start off projecting moderately loud warnings in a variety of languages and then start turning up the volume as the ship continues to approach the ship. Since the suicide bombing of the USS Cole the military's been interested in ways of convincing ships to back off that doesn't involve firing naval weapons at tiny fishing boats which simply may not have the equipment or experienced crewmen to realize they need to give a warship some space.
-
I heard the americans were developing some kinda non-lethal 'deathray' type thing, which doesn't injure you at all, just covers your body with excruciating, blinding, paralysing pain.
Any of you guys know anything about that?
I've seen it and stood in it. I lasted all of a second. My buddy holds the record at five seconds.
-
Here is an AP reporter being exposed to it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RewekVjO52M).
It's for "crowd dispersion."
-
google 'pain ray' (http://search.conduit.com/Results.aspx?q=pain+ray&ctid=CT309158&octid=CT309158)
-
Just to clarify: those things are illegal by any international standards.
Also that thing in the video seems to be quite harmless in contrast to what I've heard about it. Could a different one, thought.
-
Man, how often has anyone here had to defend themselves with lethal force? I'm not asking that rhetorically to argue in a snide sort of way, I'm asking seriously.
my friend Stevie got robbed at gun point last week, buddy JD got jumped twice but luckily he just stood up to them and they turned out to be cowards, TJ got his teeth knocked out with brass knuckles recently, and the same guys that knocked his teeth out also broke some girls ribs and tried to throw her into the ocean. those are only the recent examples that i can think of; there's definitely more that i won't go into.
feel free to feel as safe as you want but i sure as shit don't. these are people i know and i live in an extremely small town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger%2C_WA) surrounded by several other, equally small towns. and this shit still goes down.
and that fails to mention all of the herion/crack/meth addicts who wouldn't hesitate to rob and/or kill you (several of whom are people who i used to call friends,unfortunately).
...and that's my rant.
-
Now, I don't know much about the scenario, but there's a few things that make MAD a bad analogy for guns in general.
I assume those in charge of missile bases, like Petrov had to be highly intelligent to get to their positions. Intelligent enough to weigh up the pros and cons of firing missiles when they think the other side might have already fired there's. I don't know the gun laws of any country, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't have to be as intelligent, trained, or experienced, as men like Petrov to buy a gun. So, what makes you* qualified to decide whether someone is posing a definite threat to your, or someone else's, life. Presumably in any situation where you know for certain "This person is going to try to kill me" it's going to be far too late for you to draw a gun and eliminate the threat.**
That takes me neatly onto my next point: time. How long does it take for nuclear missiles to get from the former Soviet bases to the American mainland, and vice versa? A matter of minutes I assume. In those minutes, at least some sort of rational decision making can be done to determine whether the threat is genuine. How long does a person have to figure out if someone is going to try to kill them, or someone else? I think saying they have 10 seconds to decide is fairly generous.
So, to sum up, MAD involves intelligent people who have a certain (admittedly fairly short) amount of time to rationally decide whether a nuclear attack is underway.
On the other hand, we have people who are almost certainly going to be less intelligent than military officials*** with much less time than military officials having to decide whether they need to use a gun or not.
*'You' not being aimed at anyone here, just people in general.
**Because, you know, they're not people, like you or me, they're criminals who are therefor pure evil and deserving of being wounded or killed.
***I'm not saying gun owners can't be intelligent, but rather that MOST people are less intelligent than military officials.
Now. Will someone who can write better than be please rewrite all that to make more sense?
-
I agree that MAD is a terrible analogy; I don't even know why the Cold War was brought up, honestly. That said, I'm fairly comfortable with very bad things happening to "People just like you or me" when they're in the midst of committing a crime because when you are committing a crime you've forfeited a lot of your rights, are antagonizing people and most imporantly, you become an unknown, unpredictable quantity. I don't know what a mugger or person who breaks into my home could do; I really don't. All you can know with any reasonable certainty is that the person in question is showing a lack of respect for society's conventions, the well-being of others and have quite willfully put you in a very bad situation for reasons unknown. How someone goes from there isn't something I'm really prepared to criticize.
I'm actually against the death penalty and I'm a pretty big advocate of the rights of the accused. I am a gun owner, but I'm against concealed carry and I don't really think of them as a self-defense option; my own weapons are stored empty and equipped with trigger locks plus shooting someone is an event I feel I could rather do without. That said, I worry less about people who would only fire a gun when they believe they're in very real danger than I would worry about someone who is willing to commit a crime for their own gain.
-
doh
-
Maybe they are hunting a Leviathan?
Ozy, while I appreciate the sentiment that intent behind use is key - see up there where I defend farmers using rifles as deterrents against feral animals and as a means of sustenance - arguing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" sort of begs the question: if people kill people, why give 'em more weapons? I'm willing to tolerate gun ownership as the "right" a developed nation has determined its citizens possess, especially with stringent safety requirements, and I'm certainly in favour of using guns as tools rather than weapons - again, see my farmer example. Tying this back to the topic at hand, the Taser shotgun is not a tool. It is very much a weapon. I am not as concerned about its widespread uses as its potential for abuse, no matter how localized the situation.
I was just minding my own business reading this thread when I came across this.
Johnny, fuck you so much for confusing me with Switty. Fuck you SO MUCH.
-
At least the post for which he confused us was calm and thought out, as opposed to the way I usually post.
-
What is the purpose of a safety that disengages when the trigger is pulled? I don't know a lot about guns, and so I am totally at a loss for what the safety does if not prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled.
Let me flip this question around: What is the purpose of a gun that doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled?
Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.
In that case, Glocks are not for you. The Glock safety system is not inherently flawed, but it doesn't cover for unsafe use of the gun, which is why it's popular with professional armed units like police. It's not as if any pressure on the trigger will fire the gun. It has to be pulled straight back, and the trigger safety has to be disengaged first. In any case, accidental trigger pulls are only an issue if there is a chambered round in the gun.
Revolvers often lack a safety because their actions either require manually cocking the hammer or require a heavy trigger pull when the hammer is down. You wouldn't carry a revolver around with the hammer cocked on a loaded chamber, would you? Why would would you carry a Glock around like that?
-
For the record, I did not bring up MAD (since when is that a commonplace acronym?), though that is a possible consequence of what I brought up. I mentioned the arms race, because the notion that 'others pose threats to me, thus I can have a gun if I am responsible with it and use it only in self defence' is part of what motivated the arms race. Let's all just get 'nuclear deterrents' and we'll never get robbed, guys!
If any old punk on the street can have get his dirty little mitts on a pistol, why can't I have an assault rifle? Because if two of the fuckers break in on my house to rob my priceless heirlooms, I wan't to be able to fuck their shit up and protect my family.
I know people aren't here arguing the right to bear automatic assault weapons, but reducto ad absurdum, guys. I like the idea of people not having many lethal weapons.
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. If you take out the guns, you will not make it impossible to kill, but you will make it harder.
Also, the cold war nearly ended the fucking world more than once. We could all not be here right now. Think about that.
-
Man, how often has anyone here had to defend themselves with lethal force? I'm not asking that rhetorically to argue in a snide sort of way, I'm asking seriously.
my friend Stevie got robbed at gun point last week, buddy JD got jumped twice but luckily he just stood up to them and they turned out to be cowards, TJ got his teeth knocked out with brass knuckles recently, and the same guys that knocked his teeth out also broke some girls ribs and tried to throw her into the ocean. those are only the recent examples that i can think of; there's definitely more that i won't go into.
feel free to feel as safe as you want but i sure as shit don't. these are people i know and i live in an extremely small town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger%2C_WA) surrounded by several other, equally small towns. and this shit still goes down.
and that fails to mention all of the herion/crack/meth addicts who wouldn't hesitate to rob and/or kill you (several of whom are people who i used to call friends,unfortunately).
...and that's my rant.
So, are you saying that if you're robbed at gunpoint, it's ok to kill the robber?
I think your anecdotes do not really stand up to scrutiny.
If you're robbed at gunpoint, the robber has the jump on you to begin with. If you go for your gun when he's already got a gun pointed at you, you're going to get shot.
If you're assaulted by a group that doesn't have lethal weapons, then deadly force isn't justified. If you shoot them, your self-defense excuse isn't going to stand up in court. (As an aside, there is no such thing as "legal" killing. All killings are illegal, but some are excused by the law as being in self-defense. When you mount a self-defense defense, you are admitting to homicide.)
And I live in the third largest city in the United States, and I have yet to be assaulted. Just because you live in a small town and get assaulted, it doesn't mean that violence is rampant everywhere. I mean, I could go hang out in MLD territory wearing the wrong colors and probably see some violence, but that doesn't mean I need a gun.
Also, drug addicts aren't unhinged killers. What a ridiculous thing to say.
-
For the record, I did not bring up MAD (since when is that a commonplace acronym?), though that is a possible consequence of what I brought up. I mentioned the arms race, because the notion that 'others pose threats to me, thus I can have a gun if I am responsible with it and use it only in self defence' is part of what motivated the arms race. Let's all just get 'nuclear deterrents' and we'll never get robbed, guys!
If any old punk on the street can have get his dirty little mitts on a pistol, why can't I have an assault rifle? Because if two of the fuckers break in on my house to rob my priceless heirlooms, I wan't to be able to fuck their shit up and protect my family.
Mutually Assured Destruction has nothing to do with guns. Guns are fundamentally different from the weapons involved in MAD mainly because they're not weapons of mass destruction. A gun is designed to kill one thing at a time. People are allowed to own guns. People are not allowed to own WMDs. You can't have any type of bomb, much less a nuclear weapon anywhere, for obvious reasons.
It is simply riskier to shoot someone who also has a gun. That is all.
-
@Dennis
are you going to stand (or sit) there and tell me that if somebody raped and murdered your whole family you wouldn't want them to die? what if they did it right in front of you, with no law enforcement around, and you had a gun in your hand? would you shoot them? i fucking would.
the idea that "murder is never right, no matter what" is idiotic, idealistic, and naive. sometimes, people just need to die. i'm sorry we don't live in candyland but shit happens.
yes, my examples from my own life were weak but that's just my life. that's all i have to go on. they may not seem bad to someone from a city (not you necessarily, i don't know where your from) but i grew up in a place where that shit just didn't happen so when something like that happens, it's a big fucking deal. it's scary when you've never seen that kind of violence before, to all of a sudden have it crashing through your doors.
if i was robbed at gun point, i wouldn't want to kill the person; that would be silly. i would however, try my damnedest to really hurt that person, if i could, then call the police.
i know all drug addicts aren't maniacs, that's obviously ridiculous. i tend to overuse hyperbole.
one of my best friends is a heroin addict and she's lovely. but many of my other ex-friends who are now constantly doped-up have actually taken to stealing and other sketchy activities. so it seems to me that the next step couldn't be far-off.
i'm pretty sure i sound like a huge jerk thoughout most of this post but i don't want to try to find a p.c. way to say it so i'll just leave it as is. sorry.
also, on a semi-related note: i really liked what you said about guns a couple posts ago. you basically said what i wasn't articulate enough to say.
-
@tommy
first quote: that's not what i was saying.
second quote: i'm supposed to respect someone who doesn't value their own life, let alone others lives? i fail to see the logic in that.
let's say someone is rushing into a crowd with a bomb strapped to their chest. you would be opposed to me shooting that person in the head and saving dozens of other lives? that's moronic.
now quit ganging up on me. i went to american public schools and can't defend myself.
-
Let me flip this question around: What is the purpose of a gun that doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled?
Given that you didn't answer the question, I'm guessing you thought I was arguing with you. That's okay though, other people already answered.
Also, I missed this post until dennis quoted it:
my friend Stevie got robbed at gun point last week, buddy JD got jumped twice but luckily he just stood up to them and they turned out to be cowards, TJ got his teeth knocked out with brass knuckles recently, and the same guys that knocked his teeth out also broke some girls ribs and tried to throw her into the ocean. those are only the recent examples that i can think of; there's definitely more that i won't go into.
Dude, where do you live? Remind me never to go there.
@Dennis
are you going to stand (or sit) there and tell me that if somebody raped and murdered your whole family you wouldn't want them to die? what if they did it right in front of you, with no law enforcement around, and you had a gun in your hand? would you shoot them? i fucking would.
I scoured his posts rather carefully, and I cannot find the part where he said that. Could you provide a quote?
-
@tommy
second quote: i'm supposed to respect someone who doesn't value their own life, let alone others lives?
I would have thought this a very basic example of humanity! Your example is ridiculous and not applicable.
-
Jesus Goddamn at least you could call them something other than "the target."
Anything I'm pointing a loaded firearm at is a target. Its simple: Don't point a loaded weapon at something you're not willing to shoot, hit what you shoot at. To me, something I shoot at is a target. If it moves and breaths its still a target.
So, are you saying that if you're robbed at gunpoint, it's ok to kill the robber?
Yes. If, in the process of defending myself the robber gets killed then he gets killed. In my state the law allows me to defend myself until I feel can safely escape the situation. If the shot that neutralizes the robber as a threat kills him then thats the way it goes. Don't want to get shot? Don't mug people. If my life is potentially on the line I do not want it to be a fair fight, or to have a little bit of an edge, I want to have a decided advantage. If someone has a problem with the idea of using deadly force to protect themself, then they don't have to carry a gun. Simple as that.
-
I guess the question is do you think that your cash on hand is worth more than somebody's life.
I could have a million dollars on hand and the person mugging me could be the most vile human being alive, and I still would not value my cash over his life.
-
See, the thing is, this isn't game theory and people don't have perfect information. Tommydski, whether you admit it or not, people do get killed or maimed in those situations-- you weren't, but you could have been. Anyone who kills someone else in an altercation would have to live with the idea that maybe what they did wasn't necessary to defend themselves, but by the same token they won't be around to regret the decision if it turns out it was necessary. I'm simply not willing to sit here and make that decision for someone else. Period.
-
I guess the question is do you think that your cash on hand is worth more than somebody's life.
I could have a million dollars on hand and the person mugging me could be the most vile human being alive, and I still would not value my cash over his life.
I don't think it is a matter of how much money I have. I'd respond the same way if someone pulled a knife, threatened me and I had absolutely no money on me at all. I feel it is the principal that someone is threatening my well being, and wants to take from me what I earned by working. If someone threatens me in a serious manner I assume they are willing to do me harm, and if they're trying to do me harm I don't feel any remorse for responding in kind.
-
@Dennis
are you going to stand (or sit) there and tell me that if somebody raped and murdered your whole family you wouldn't want them to die? what if they did it right in front of you, with no law enforcement around, and you had a gun in your hand? would you shoot them? i fucking would.
I said it's always illegal. I said nothing about whether it's right or wrong, and I'm not naive enough to believe that just because something is against the law that it's also wrong. I do think that it's wrong to kill someone, whatever the reason, but I doubt I doubt I would be strong enough to resist the temptation to kill in your hypothetical situation.
the idea that "murder is never right, no matter what" is idiotic, idealistic, and naive. sometimes, people just need to die. i'm sorry we don't live in candyland but shit happens.
Why? What makes you so sure your gut feeling is true?
yes, my examples from my own life were weak but that's just my life. that's all i have to go on. they may not seem bad to someone from a city (not you necessarily, i don't know where your from) but i grew up in a place where that shit just didn't happen so when something like that happens, it's a big fucking deal. it's scary when you've never seen that kind of violence before, to all of a sudden have it crashing through your doors.
Well, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, you should probably avoid roads.
if i was robbed at gun point, i wouldn't want to kill the person; that would be silly. i would however, try my damnedest to really hurt that person, if i could, then call the police.
You'd risk getting shot for petty revenge? You don't fuck around, man.
i know all drug addicts aren't maniacs, that's obviously ridiculous. i tend to overuse hyperbole.
one of my best friends is a heroin addict and she's lovely. but many of my other ex-friends who are now constantly doped-up have actually taken to stealing and other sketchy activities. so it seems to me that the next step couldn't be far-off.
So petty crime is a gateway to murder? Or only if you're a drug addict? I mean, assuming you avoided getting shot by the armed robber in your previous example and subdued him, you'd maim him, then call the police. That's assault and battery, a worse crime than theft and "sketchy activity". Does that mean you're a step away from murdering people you think might commit a crime in the future?
i'm pretty sure i sound like a huge jerk thoughout most of this post but i don't want to try to find a p.c. way to say it so i'll just leave it as is. sorry.
also, on a semi-related note: i really liked what you said about guns a couple posts ago. you basically said what i wasn't articulate enough to say.
I don't think anyone cares if you're PC in here. I certainly don't.
-
Let me flip this question around: What is the purpose of a gun that doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled?
Given that you didn't answer the question, I'm guessing you thought I was arguing with you. That's okay though, other people already answered.
Sorry. I was feeling rhetorical.
-
In that case, Glocks are not for you. The Glock safety system is not inherently flawed, but it doesn't cover for unsafe use of the gun, which is why it's popular with professional armed units like police.
And I am sure the price cuts glock gives to police units doesn't have anything to do with it. And your average police officers likely shoots less often than your average gun enthusiast, they only have to qualify once yearly. If glocks are so awesome, why does only one military use them, that being the Austrian military, and not some special forces group? The Marine Expeditionary Unit uses 1911s still, as does delta force (allegedly). This is becoming a glock/1911 debate though.
Now, here is a question. How do you know the guy robbing you won't just stab you or shoot you if he doesn't want you to be able to finger him in a lineup or if he is angry that you don't have as much money as he thought you would? It isn't so much that you value your money more than someone's life, it is that you don't want to be at someone else's mercy.
I am unlike sonof, in that I would feel a great deal of remorse over it, at least after it happened. I would probably have myself put on a suicide watch, because shooting someone is something that should not have to happen. If you shoot someone, it means something went wrong somewhere, even if it was just when he (or she) decided to start mugging people on the street.
-
I don't think it is a matter of how much money I have. I'd respond the same way if someone pulled a knife, threatened me and I had absolutely no money on me at all. I feel it is the principal that someone is threatening my well being, and wants to take from me what I earned by working. If someone threatens me in a serious manner I assume they are willing to do me harm, and if they're trying to do me harm I don't feel any remorse for responding in kind.
But what exactly can you do to protect yourself against a man who has a gun pointed at you (and presumably anyone you're with)?
If you assume that he is not willing to kill you and just using the gun to intimidate you, and you use deadly force against him, that's attempted murder if not murder. Whether or not you're successful, you are risking your own life and that of anyone who is around which you basically do not have the right to do.
If you assume that he is willing to kill you for your money, then you are putting a price on your life, and that of bystanders. How much your life is worth to you is your business, but you can't make that decision for anyone else.
If you assume that he is going to kill you anyway, then you're wrong. If that were the case, he'd just rob your dead body.
In any case, robbers want your money, not your life.
-
In that case, Glocks are not for you. The Glock safety system is not inherently flawed, but it doesn't cover for unsafe use of the gun, which is why it's popular with professional armed units like police.
And I am sure the price cuts glock gives to police units doesn't have anything to do with it. And your average police officers likely shoots less often than your average gun enthusiast, they only have to qualify once yearly. If glocks are so awesome, why does only one military use them, that being the Austrian military, and not some special forces group? The Marine Expeditionary Unit uses 1911s still, as does delta force (allegedly). This is becoming a glock/1911 debate though.
If Glock offers discounts to police units, I'm sure other manufacturers do as well.
I'm also not some kind of Glock nut. I think they have their merits, as I do of 1911s, USPs, and the M9. Military contracts are awarded as much for personal preference and political reasons, as much as technical reasons.
Now, here is a question. How do you know the guy robbing you won't just stab you or shoot you if he doesn't want you to be able to finger him in a lineup or if he is angry that you don't have as much money as he thought you would? It isn't so much that you value your money more than someone's life, it is that you don't want to be at someone else's mercy.
Like I said, you don't know that. However, pulling a gun on a person who is already pointing a gun on you is tactically stupid. Sometimes you don't have a choice, which is why guns are scary!
-
If my life is potentially on the line I do not want it to be a fair fight, or to have a little bit of an edge, I want to have a decided advantage. If someone has a problem with the idea of using deadly force to protect themself, then they don't have to carry a gun.
See, I would like to point out that this is what I was referring to earlier as reasoning that can begin an arms race. If that punk-ass-bitch is pointing their sawed-off shotgun at you, how do you react? My point being, a bigger gun is not a decided advantage, it's a bigger gun. I can kill you with the .22 my father used to hunt small game. If you've got a Desert Eagle .50, you've got a nice big pistol to my small game pea-shooter rifle, but I can still kill you.
A decided advantage in this case would consist of:
- Quick draw lessons
- Stealth draw lessons
- Hand to hand combat and disarming skills
- Flak vest
- Flak vest
- Flak vest
- Combat helmet
If you've got a gun, and I've got a knife, I can stab your ass before you pull your gun. In fact, instead of your ass, I could stab you in the throat, or maybe just the arm so you can't shoot.
So, having a gun does not compensate for me having the drop on you. It may give you power, but just like a formula one car is crap at the off-roading I did in my old, trashy four-wheel drive, having target-shooting skills does not give someone the ability to successfully defeat a mugger.
Can you provide me an instance where someone you know was required to use lethal force in self defense?
P.S. I would just like to point out that Dennis' double-posting is not such a faux pas because separate posts are being used for separate points and responses.
-
A gun is not a weapon, Marge. It's a tool! Like a butcher knife or a harpoon or, uh, uh, an alligator.
-
Lisa, if I didn't have a gun, then the King of England could just walk in here and start ordering you around! You want that, huh?
Theoretically my political beliefs would allow for gun ownership, mainly because I find the concentration of lethal force in the hands of authority conceptually more troublesome than everyone having access to lethal force. But then I go out of my room and meet actual people again. :(
-
See, I would like to point out that this is what I was referring to earlier as reasoning that can begin an arms race. If that punk-ass-bitch is pointing their sawed-off shotgun at you, how do you react? My point being, a bigger gun is not a decided advantage, it's a bigger gun. I can kill you with the .22 my father used to hunt small game. If you've got a Desert Eagle .50, you've got a nice big pistol to my small game pea-shooter rifle, but I can still kill you.
A decided advantage in this case would consist of:
- Quick draw lessons
- Stealth draw lessons
- Hand to hand combat and disarming skills
- Flak vest
- Flak vest
- Flak vest
- Combat helmet
If you've got a gun, and I've got a knife, I can stab your ass before you pull your gun. In fact, instead of your ass, I could stab you in the throat, or maybe just the arm so you can't shoot.
So, having a gun does not compensate for me having the drop on you. It may give you power, but just like a formula one car is crap at the off-roading I did in my old, trashy four-wheel drive, having target-shooting skills does not give someone the ability to successfully defeat a mugger.
Can you provide me an instance where someone you know was required to use lethal force in self defense?
first off, quick and stealth draw lessons aren't even real. All it takes is practice drawing your firearm, bringing it to bear and squeezing the trigger. It takes me about a second and a half. Reaching for my gun and wallet look the same, so thats not an issue for me. The whole idea of stabbing me in my arm is far fetched as well. Most people are right handed, that would mean that my attacker would have to travel toward me, across my body and attack my right side to disable that arm, all while I'm moving, backing away and attempting to bring my gun to bear. The same argument is valid against the stabbing in the throat claim. Someone would have to be very good with a knife to stab someone in the throat while they're fighting back and moving away. Most likely, I would get stabbed in the left arm, as that is the side of my body that would be facing my attacker, and if someone is slashing/stabbing at your head/neck area it is natural response to throw up an arm to protect yourself. Target shooting has nothing to do with self defense shooting. If you're close enough to mug me, I can probably damn near stick the gun in your belly before firing. I'm not worried about aim.
Its true that a bigger gun isn't always better. But you're arguing that no gun is somehow better? It seems to me you're ok with trusting your life to the mercy of a criminal. No thank you.
Hand to hand training, in my opinion, is always a good idea, but I think its even better as an addition to a firearm, not an alternative.
I've never known anyone that pulled a firearm as a response. I do know people who have used knives to defend themselves, and one that used a liqour bottle to beat someone half to death that was attacking them with a razor knife.
-
The whole idea of stabbing me in my arm is far fetched as well. Most people are right handed, that would mean that my attacker would have to travel toward me, across my body and attack my right side to disable that arm, all while I'm moving, backing away and attempting to bring my gun to bear. The same argument is valid against the stabbing in the throat claim. Someone would have to be very good with a knife to stab someone in the throat while they're fighting back and moving away.
Agreed. I would probably grab your right forearm and stab you in the kidney or groin first.
-
You're proving my point for why deadly force and carrying a weapon is wise.
There are people like KharBevNor in the world, who would be happy to hurt someone first then take their money. Relying on a criminal not to harm you if you comply is asking to get hurt.
-
You're making a lot of assumptions about the person who has a gun in your face. You seem to be dehumanising them somewhat. A person is still a person, and while genuinely psychopathic people do exist, a lot of people are driven to acts of crime by desperation. Does this somehow lessen their value as a human being?
If a single person is killed as a result of firearms who didn't deserve it, then there is something wrong with using firearms in those situations. While I don't want to take this thread offtopic, I'm going to liken this argument to an argument against capital punishment, as I find it easier to describe that situation and I think the mentality behind the argument is the same argument I am trying to make here.
An argument against capital punishment is that the life of one innocent person being killed for a crime they didn't commit is reason enough to abandon it completely. I happen to completely agree, and I think that only people with an insatiable bloodthirst would support it. Now, if a person robs you at gunpoint, and you shoot them to kill, this is somehow okay, because they were allegedly trying to kill you? Well, you're still alive, and they're not. You'll never know. But you also didn't let them live long enough to find out. What if the person was a family man, stealing money to feed his kids? Panicking, nervous, not himself, he chooses to rob a convenience store. A quick and easy job for money. He is then shot and killed, for being a criminal, even though he had no intent to harm anybody, and he was driven to act by external factors. Was that man really a criminal?
People attach the word 'criminal' to a person in order to dehumanise them. To take away their faces, to make it okay to hate them. It's assumed that all "criminals" are bad. This is simply not the case. The word 'criminal' is used so loosely that it could apply to anybody. From a child stealing candy from a store, to a person who has avoided paying taxes. From protesters for human rights, to bank robbers. The reason that people think it's 'okay' to shoot criminals is because they see in black and white, and we all know that there's also shades of gray.
I don't think that 'criminals' and so-called 'law abiding citizens' are mutually exclusive by any sane standards given modern day society, especially in light of many recent events.
There are people like KharBevNor in the world, who would be happy to hurt someone first then take their money. Relying on a criminal not to harm you if you comply is asking to get hurt.
This is not a fair comment. I've been reading KharBevNor's posts and I believe his has a very high level of respect for all human life, excluding DJs.
-
I am a criminal. Please don't shoot me!
-
I believe all human life is sacred, but I could still stick this joker before he shot me. I mean, if I were going to stick someone up with a knife, I would probably either be within three feet of him. In fact personally I would probably be behind him with the blade of the knife actually in contact with his body and one foot between his legs. Hell, even if I had a gun he would still be better off knowing aikido or judo than he would be carrying a gun. Also, we would both be alive after the altercation, which would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?
-
Khar, you're ignoring one basic fact: Criminals are NOT human, and they do NOT have a right to live.
-
All of you people talking about "respect for human life" are forgetting that the person robbing/raping/mugging you doesn't have any of that, because if they did, you wouldn't be getting robbed/raped/mugged.
Furthermore, you don't draw a gun and aim it at someone as a deterrent. That's called "escalating the situation," and will get you arrested, your gun license taken away, and quite possibly thrown in jail for a while. You draw a gun as a last resort, and only if you intend to use it. It seems that some of you think that people who carry concealed are going to draw at the drop of a hat and wave their gun around in an effort to intimidate people into leaving them alone, when that would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Let me say it again, you only draw your gun if you intend to use it, and only as a last resort.
As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.
I'm not trying to say I wouldn't feel awful about it immediately afterwards, and for a long time. I'm saying that I will do what I have to do to stay alive. And you know what? If they're "so desperate that they HAVE to rob someone so they can live," then they're stupid. Not stupid because they got into the situation, but stupid because of they way they've chosen to resolve it.
I'm actually done with this thread, this time. Honest.
-
All of you people talking about "respect for human life" are forgetting that the person robbing/raping/mugging you doesn't have any of that, because if they did, you wouldn't be getting robbed/raped/mugged.
So? I still have my morality and I'm not going to give it up.
-
Sox's last post pretty thoroughly showed the problem with making points like that, anyway.
I think it's horrific that you are capable of thinking of people in any terms other than as people. Sure, you have a very real right to defend yourself, but their right to not be killed is as important as yours.
People breaking the law still have basic human rights, you know.
-
Dude, if I truly had no respect for human life, and I wanted to rob you, and I was prepared to kill you, I would simply shoot you in the head and then rob your corpse. The fact that I have not would imply that I have maybe some reservations about casual murder, right?
-
As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.
Please, don't leave this discussion. You're one of the few people arguing for the guns that's making points I can get behind. Your second paragraph inparticular shows you to be a very sensible person. The part I've quoted however, is something that I can not get behind. A person driving drunk is putting my life in danger, but that doesn't mean they have forfeit their right to live.
There's a difference between and act of recklessness and an act of aggression, and as I've previously stated, I believe that an event such as a robbery could be either of the two, so I don't get to make that call.
Other examples, such as rape, are a VERY different topic, and for the sake of keeping this discussion as simple as we can so as to prevent it from becoming overwhelming, we should discuss it another time.
Dude, if I truly had no respect for human life, and I wanted to rob you, and I was prepared to kill you, I would simply shoot you in the head and then rob your corpse. The fact that I have not would imply that I have maybe some reservations about casual murder, right?
Dude, if I truly had no respect for human life, and I wanted to rob you, and I was prepared to kill you, I would simply shoot you in the head and then rob your corpse. The fact that I have not would imply that I have maybe some reservations about casual murder, right?
It's possible that you have a higher value on bullets than the life of the person you're aiming at.
-
Other examples, such as rape, are a VERY different topic, and for the sake of keeping this discussion as simple as we can so as to prevent it from becoming overwhelming, we should discuss it another time.
Is this topic wicked complicated? If you are going to rape me, I am going to shoot you in the face.
That felt pretty simple.
-
I should have phrased what I said differently, such as "Intentionally threatens my life" as opposed to puts my life in danger.
Now, the reason I'm leaving the discussion is because I've made my points in as simple and precise a way as I am capable. Restating the points is going to do little to no good, why why waste the energy and time?
-
I understand, I appreciate you taking the time to state your views.
thewayigroove, rape is a very different subject to gun control laws. It's also a very sensitive subject, especially if you live in the UK, where getting away with rape is easier than seeing a gun. It is a very complicated topic, and if we talked about it like we've spoken about gun control in this thread, we'd have barely scratched the surface. It's a huge topic and it can't be discussed here without moving irrecoverably offtopic in this thread.
-
We're already irrecoverably off-topic, and have been for about 3/4 of this thing. Look at the thread-name.
-
[opinion]Just because someone doesn't have respect for human life doesn't mean you shouldn't either.[/opinion]
-
It isn't about not having respect for their life. It's about having more respect for my own.
-
To diverge a little, back to the original topic.
In terms of the taser being shaped like a shotgun; surely the newer version is just as much a psychological weapon as a physical threat? A taser certainly scares most people but a shotgun is a helluva lot scarier. And judging by those pictures I couldn't tell a shotgun from a taser shotgun so I'd be doubly scared.
Whether police should have tasers at all is a debate for another time but I'm anti it.
In terms of the gun debate currently running, some of you are arguing for your right to carry a handgun in an urban setting for your protection, am I correct? Now what you're saying to me here by arguing this is that you're willing to kill or maim someone in order to protect your physical possessions. You would honestly use a weapon to potentially murder someone? Because this cannot be argued. Even in self defence you've still commited murder if you shoot someone and they die.
As Khar has repeatedly said, if said assailant wanted your money/possessions/sex but had no concerns about your life they would simply kill you before you had a chance to react and go about their business. However, this rarely happens. I won't say it doesn't but it's very very rare. So you would murder someone for having poor impulse control/financial circumstances/etc etc...
Now I can only think of two countries off the top of my head where this is a common attitude, the USA and Brazil (shotgun murder capital of the world).
And you wonder why the US have the highest murder rate on the planet.
Basically what you're saying here is that you're willing to commit murder in order to protect your physical possesions and your body. You're no better than anyone who'd harm you.
(You is not directed at anyone specific, just the pro firearms persons)
-
Actually, the "taser shotgun" as I am aware of it is a normal shotgun that fires a taser bullet.
-
In terms of the gun debate currently running, some of you are arguing for your right to carry a handgun in an urban setting for your protection, am I correct?
Not really, no. I don't think it's really come up other than the assumption that some of us are fine with owning guns, which people extrapolated to "So you think it's okay to kill people in self defense?" to which Nodaisho said yes. The firearm part is actually somewhat tangential, all things considered.
-
Oh well that's ok then...
I'm still a firm believer in words over weapons. Realistically handguns are designed for only one thing, shooting people. Correct me if I'm wrong but people don't hunt with handguns. Same way a double edge blade is used only for stabbing, a handgun is used only for killing people. Sure both of them can be used for other things but they're absolutely designed with one purpose in mind primarily.
I have no issue with purchasing firearms provided they're rifles for hunting/sport and not handguns and the person purchasing them is put thru more stringent testing than they otherwise would be for getting say... a drivers license.
Anything less is frankly madness and I'm sure many would agree with me.
-
In terms of the gun debate currently running, some of you are arguing for your right to carry a handgun in an urban setting for your protection, am I correct?
Not really, no.
Actually that's precisely what I was making an argument against. If you look back, I essentially express befuddlement over the idea of owning a gun in an urban setting and people respond by saying it's for their protection in case someone tries to do the murder act on them.
It isn't about not having respect for their life. It's about having more respect for my own.
I don't buy it unless you're willing to retract this:
As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.
That's a genuine lack of respect for another human life right there. Rationalize it as much as you want, you've dehumanized the aggressor. I might sound like someone with a rose-tinted monitor but I genuinely believe that we'd have a much better world if people weren't thinking along the lines of "X makes someone less of a person."
Crime makes someone less of a person.
Wealth or the lack thereof makes someone less of a person.
Lack of desirable genetic traits makes someone less of a person.
The wrong religion makes someone less of a person.
The wrong politics make someone less of a person.
Do you start to see where this is going? Dehumanizing one another does nothing except to render you insensitive to the needs and desires of others. Moreover, it puts you in a state of mind where you have no problem doing something awful to another human being.
If I'm allowed to get anecdotal, I'm almost twenty and I've been in literally two physical altercations in my entire life, both when I was still in primary school. I have managed to defuse every single tense situation I've ever been in, including a few where I could have been smacked around quite a bit and a couple at my old job in the inner city where much worse things could have happened, simply by treating the other party or parties involved with a modicum of respect. Diplomacy has an astoundingly high success rate.
And besides that, if you're getting robbed you might lose twenty bucks but it sure as shit isn't something worth ending another life over. Get a sense of perspective.
-
This thread has some good reading in it on views of lethal and non lethal force.
Also that bionic zombie dinosaurs would be fucking INSANELY AWESOME. Like, a zombie movie where a bunch of nuklear holocaust survivors get sent back in time millions of years and the radiation or whatever makes the dinosaurs into zombies and the people have to survive, but the zombie dinosaurs mutate with the technology so they get like, lasers and shit. Dueling a bionic zombie raptor atop a volcano with only a pack of gum and a taser shotgun would be awesome, all like disabling it's power armour with the electricity. And a killer sound dtack with pipe organs, electrometal guitars and a synth like the bit in DMC where Danté meets Nelo Angelo for the first time in the courtyard.
Fuck yeah :-D
-
...pardon?
-
Why don't we just kill all the criminals in pre-emptive self-defense?
-
As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it would throw out the Geneva convention and any other regulations designed to treat prisoners, criminals and soldiers with respect for their human rights.
Another thing that worries me about the use of guns in self defence is the idea is that somehow all the bullets then fired will actually hit what they're meant to. I remember reading a report a few years back about the police armed response units in the UK which said that only 50% of the shots they fired actually hit their target. I'm thinking with any person reacting to a personal situation that percentage will probably get even lower. When people are considering whether or not to pull out a gun on somebody would they also take the time to consider the environment and the possibility of catching someone in the crossfire? I have to say I'm doubtful.
-
Why don't we just kill all the criminals in pre-emptive self-defense?
WE COULD GO FURTHER...ONLY THE LIVING COMMIT CRIMESSSS...ALL LIFE ISSSSS A CRIME!
(http://www.crashonline.org.uk/47/images/death.gif)
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but people don't hunt with handguns.
Yeah, they do. It seems silly to most of us with rifles because handguns are rather awful weapons, all things considered, yes, people do hunt with handguns.
And I must have missed you saying that earlier Johnny C. Regardless, it is rather a minor footnote in the real big theme of the thread: When and to what severity is it OK to harm someone else for your own interests? Because the guns really just expedite the process once the decision has been made.
-
Yeah, but the point being made is that carrying the handgun signifies that once the decision is made it may be quite deadly in comparison to the alternatives, and the necessity of that is in question.
-
(http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4476/userauxbm9026bd1cc753e1ar8.gif)
I thought you were someone from Dumbrella for a second. Damn.
-
Guys, I don't know why "getting mugged" is the only situation of self-defense anyone has bothered to come up with. IronOxide said something about how if he had a million dollars, he would still value the life of the person assaulting him over the money. What if s/he wasn't after money? What if you didn't have any money at all, and they were assaulting you anyway? If I happened to be raped at gunpoint or something, and I miraculously had some way to defend myself, you bet your ass I would attempt to fuck up my assailant in self-defense. Shit, I think even if it weren't at gunpoint I'd utilise everything I know about debilitating pressure points (like certain angles at which you can punch someone in the face and drive their nose into their brain) to get them to stop. I can honestly say that anyone who would attempt rape, especially violent rape, has lost my respect for their existence and certainly earned my contempt, regardless of whether or not I could feasibly do anything about it.
On a side note, Rizz, if I were ever able to get my hands on a double-edged blade of short to middling length, I would take it and use it in my more naturalistic pursuits and for the zombie apocalypse. Double edged blades would be so nice for hand-butchering food and cooking and shaving bark off saplings for traps and a bunch of other stuff that hasn't occurred to me because I am still kind of sleepy.
-
Actually that thing about palming someone upwards in the nose so that it stabs their brain and kills them is bullshit, apparently. I was talking unarmed self-defense with the head guard at work who is basically an unstoppable arse-kicking machine and he was telling me about a couple of good ways to hurt a dude pretty badly without running the risk of killing them accidentally and that was one of them. Apparently bouncers use it all the time and they just would not do that if there was a risk of killing a guy.
That is my only valuable contribution to this thread because I am personally completely uncomfortable with the idea of utilizing our incredible ingenuity to create something that could make the taking of human life more efficient.
Carry on, good folks.
Edit: On second read katie, you were in fact saying that it does not kill people, and stops them in their tracks!
I should read more.
-
You could just try not asking for it, you shameless hussy.
-
You shot him! He's dead! He's completely dead!
Of course I shot him -- he was attacking me with a banana!
-
I'd like to say that, even if I was being mugged/attacked/killed, that I would stand by the code of ethics that I strive to live by, and not take the life of another living thing. But I know full well that once the adrenaline kicked in, I would fight tooth and nail and probably go far beyond just fighting off my assailant and keep pummeling him. When I'm confronted by something/one that's that hostile towards me, I'm going to be ferocious in my defense of myself.
But the concept of dehumanizing the person with cold hardness doesn't make sense to me. My problem would be going in the opposite direction--being so overcome with fury at the person who's attacking me that I would go overboard. Maybe I'm biased because I could see myself doing it, but that sort of thing seems semi-acceptable to me. Being calm and rational about killing someone, though, doesn't strike me as the same kind of deal. That's..how is that different from a cold-blooded killer? Even if a person is being hostile towards you, if you're completely cool about killing that person, my personal opinion is that your action--killing the person-- is actually the more condemnable one.
-
I know a guy who was involved in being attacked and the attacker ending up dead. I never asked him about it for obvious reasons but he seems like it didn't phase him, in a way it wasn't his fault so, meh.
I guess people all act differently at taking another persons life.
-
When you're fighting for your own life, I think instincts take over and all the ethics you've built up through careful consideration and lots of thinking flies right out the window.* If we're going to discuss this hypothetically all along we need to take our instincts into the equation.
But therein lies the point of getting guns out of people's hands: you won't be able to make a rational decision when the time comes, so if you have a gun then you are going to make a huge mistake. By making a rational decision now, we avoid an irrational decision later.
-
But the concept of dehumanizing the person with cold hardness doesn't make sense to me. My problem would be going in the opposite direction--being so overcome with fury at the person who's attacking me that I would go overboard. Maybe I'm biased because I could see myself doing it, but that sort of thing seems semi-acceptable to me. Being calm and rational about killing someone, though, doesn't strike me as the same kind of deal. That's..how is that different from a cold-blooded killer? Even if a person is being hostile towards you, if you're completely cool about killing that person, my personal opinion is that your action--killing the person-- is actually the more condemnable one.
No one who has said they would be okay with taking the life of their attacker. In fact, I'm the only one who has specifically made mention of dehumanizing the attacker for that purpose, and that isn't so I could be "okay" with it, that is so I could not be a broken mess of a person afterwards. I do have some pretty harsh views about it, I'll be the first to admit, but that's just the way I see things while sitting in a cushy chair with no pants on. The way I'll react in a real-world situation may be completely different. Besides that, it's not like I carry a gun everywhere I go.. Just most places.
-
I think Mr Hocking is right.
-
A thought occurred to me while in the shower: Just what exactly is the difference between shooting someone(In justifiable self defense) and beating them to death in a fit of panic? Honestly. I want to know how they're different. The end result is the same, you hook a human life in defense of your own.
In scenario 1, you shoot the attacker 1-3 times, they fall over dead, or almost dead, and bleed out.
In scenario 2, you go into a fit of panic and adrenaline and start swinging. Over the course of the next several minutes you pummel your attacker into a bloody heap.
Given the choice of ways to die, I'd rather be shot.
-
There really isn't one. As Johnny C said earlier though, it's a question of severity and likelihood. It's a lot easier to realize you're going too far with your bare hands than it is to dial down the risk with a firearm.
-
When you use a gun you detach yourself from the person, dehumanise them like you said. It's not only disgusting, removing someone's humanity before ending their life, it's cold, calculated murder. If I beat the crap out of an attacker, it would most likely be an involuntary reaction and I don't think I'd manage to beat them to death. Someone else can probably answer the question better than me though.
Given the choice of ways to die, I'd rather be shot.
Why do you think your preference matters, if we're dehumanising our targets?
-
Someone who has dehumanized other people may be more likely to shoot someone, but in that case the gun is a symptom, not the cause. My grandfather and his brother were both in WWII and have killed people. Neither hand to hand fighting (which my great uncle was a part of) nor shooting someone is in any way pleasant, and coping with either isn't easy even when you've already gone in with the mindset that killing in the particular situation is justified. Again, guns can be representative of a person's intentions, but saying guns themselves are dehumanizing is ascribing them too much power. We've had propaganda doing that job for millennia now.
-
Just what exactly is the difference
Really, there is no difference with the net result. However, with a gun, it is easier to make a snap decision and kill than it is without. If I'm beating on an assailant, and knock him out, well, that's one life saved. If someone comes at you and gets shot, they're dead.
I guess this just comes back to varying levels of regard for the lives of others.
Again, guns can be representative of a person's intentions, but saying guns themselves are dehumanizing is ascribing them too much power. We've had propaganda doing that job for millennia now.
Pardon, milennia?
-
A millennium= roughly thousand years. We've been declaring eachother heretics, savages and animals worthy of being put to the sword for one reason or another for at least all of recorded history, so I'd say dehumanizing proganda and saying it's OK to kill people because we're better than them for some reason has been in vogue for quite some time now.
-
I didn't mean to say that guns dehumanise people, but they do detach you from what you're doing somewhat, I think.
-
Awesome.
I had something to say, but it's slipping my mind now because I just heard of the Kosovo says they're independent now thing, which is pretty much sure to stir up some kind of political shitstorm.
-
I didn't ask about the act, I asked about the results.
words
We're dehumanizing attackers, not victims.
This thread has turned south, almost to the point of no longer being intelligent debate, I vote it gets locked.
-
This thread hasn't turned south any time recently, as far as I'm concerned. It's been at about this level for a while.
I vote no to the lock on principle. If you're done talking, stop talking. Then dialog will die.
This is a great opportunity to prove a) that we can have discussion without necessitating a lock and b) we're adult enough to stop talking when we're done.
A millennium= roughly thousand years.
On first reading, it sounded like you were implying propaganda had been saying what was said about guns for millennia.
-
Multiple people already said the result is the same, and then went on to point out that the act itself is what's different. Comparing the result and not the act in this case is quite misleading. That you aren't keeping up with the conversation hardly makes others bad debaters.
As for the thread having gone south, as slick points out it was already south. I was all but calling for a lock at the top of page 3.
-
Yeah, I didn't bother to edit that part of my post because I figured context would dictate the "He means propaganda is used to dehumanize people" interpretation would be latched onto first. I guess people aren't prepared to give me that much credit yet.
-
I know, but I have this instinct not to immediately latch onto the most batshit insane interpretation of any given post.
Hey, don't worry, it's not like I'm upset. The hunters with guns mural was hilarious.
-
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q107/Cire27/trigun_vash1.jpg)
-
LOVE AND PEACE
-
I keep feeling bad for the person that made taster shotguns when I read the thread title :[.
He was just trying the best he could.
-
Seriously, the fact that he invented a taser shotgun implies that he is possibly quite smart. Now, there are good and bad smart people, and the fact that he wanted to make a taser shotgun leans him over towards the asshole side, but he could have been commissioned to do it. I would rather invent a less lethal weapon than a more lethal one, if I had to choose.
I made the typo "taster" shotgun twice while writing the post. Is this awesome (Y/N)?
-
We're dehumanizing attackers, not victims.
What about dehumanising shitty drivers that don't indicate and killing them?
-
No one ever deserves dehumanisation.
Except people who play music on their cellphones loudly on buses.