Are You For Or Against Guns?

[nixproducer]

I'm for guns, but isn't a tazer gun enough for protection?

yes, but in some states it is illegal to have one

[Guest Kloaked]

yes, but in some states it is illegal to have one

 

R u srs

[nixproducer]

R u srs

it is http://planetstungun.com/pages/stun-gun-laws

[Guest Kloaked]

it is http://planetstungun.com/pages/stun-gun-laws

 

I don't know what to make of that.

 

I wonder what the reasoning is.

[nixproducer]

I don't know what to make of that.

 

I wonder what the reasoning is.

dont know why, but i just know that it is illegal to carry them in some states, but in most states its legal 

[cae]

I'm for guns, but isn't a tazer gun enough for protection?

 

In some situations - a single target within 5 meters or so. If you hit your target, you have 30 seconds to book it. What if they have a gun? What if there's more than one assailant? What if you can't run or find a place to get away? What if you miss?

[Guest]

I'm for guns, but isn't a tazer gun enough for protection?

the problem is it has only one shot and limited range.

[wpirobotbuilder]

The 2nd amendment needs to be updated for the modern world. When the law was written the most advanced technology out there was the musket and the cannon, and the idea was to have an equally well-armed citizenry to guard against a standing army. Source: The Federalist Papers No. 29

 

If that idea was upheld today, that would mean I would have the right to own not just assault rifles but also unmanned drones.

 

Which is sort of ridiculous... right?

 

The law needs to adapt, making decisions on technology the original authors could never have conceived. Otherwise we end up with heated debate over the topic of gun ownership.

[Art Vandelay]

Getting into a gun safe takes only a few seconds.  If your life is so endangered that there isn't a few seconds, a gun under your pillow isn't going to help you anyway.  And yes, police here respond very very quickly to "there's a stranger in my house with a gun".  Guns only serve to escalate situations.  Nowhere did I say lay down and die.

 

Not to mention all the BS around not properly trained people firing their guns off "protecting" themselves or others and actually just hitting people not even involved.  Or kids shooting each other.  Or people shooting themselves accidentally.  Or each other accidentally.  Or getting drunk and shooting someone.  

 

I'd bet the list of people injured and killed by those things is much larger than the list of people "protected" from intruders because of a gun.

I think you underestimate the amount of time it takes to get a gun out of a safe. It's not like you're going to open a dial lock in only a few seconds with no lights on.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

page 40. Accidental discharge of firearms killed 606 people that year, whereas firearm homocide killed 11000 (total homocide was 16000). Not a great reason to give up your protection.

 

Finding actual statistics on how many lives guns save is pretty hard because in most firearm self defense cases, no one's actually shot. Considering that firearms accidents took a total of 606 lives that year out of the 120000 that were listed as accidents, that's a bit of a nonissue. If you think that alcohol makes people suddenly want to shoot eachother, you've never been drunk. Kids shooting eachother is not a thing that's actually going to be solved by gun storage laws, since you have to be pretty negligent to leave a gun out near a child in the first place, and I doubt the law's really going to have an effect on those idiots.

[Fred Castellum]

Perhaps tazer tech should advance then.

Multiple shot tazers have their own share of problems. There was this one case where the tazer blew and didn't work on the 2nd shot because the battery malfunctioned. 

[NInety]

Getting into a gun safe takes only a few seconds.  If your life is so endangered that there isn't a few seconds, a gun under your pillow isn't going to help you anyway.  And yes, police here respond very very quickly to "there's a stranger in my house with a gun".  Guns only serve to escalate situations.  Nowhere did I say lay down and die.

 

Not to mention all the BS around not properly trained people firing their guns off "protecting" themselves or others and actually just hitting people not even involved.  Or kids shooting each other.  Or people shooting themselves accidentally.  Or each other accidentally.  Or getting drunk and shooting someone.  

 

I'd bet the list of people injured and killed by those things is much larger than the list of people "protected" from intruders because of a gun.

......... how would a gun under a pillow not help in an armed intruder situation?

 

Scenario:

I hear my door get kicked in at 1 in the morning, I'm usually awake in my room playing video games so I go get my gun and use my basic arms defense training to immobilize the intruder.... then I call the police and they pick him up and then he presses charges because he was injured on my property but my insurance covers that so he get's his money but has to sit in jail.

 

2nd part of your comment thing.

Kids shoot each other? Blame the parents for allowing a firearm to get in the kids reach, as a kid that didn't grow up with guns, I spent a lot of time with my friend who has a dad that has a Glock 17 and an AK-47 along with some miscellaneous hunting rifles, when he had friends over, he couldn't get out guns. Even when he didn't have friends, his dad had to be there when he took out guns. His dad took the time to teach his son about how guns 'are not toys' and all that safety jazz. His dad let us use the guns though because he knew I trained with guns. He still supervised though.

[Cronus97]

I do know, because our soft as butter judges release everyone who cowardly king hit people. But my main point is that guns have the potential to harm at a greater rate and magnitude than anything else. When was the last time someone entered a school and beat 20 people to death? Or stabbed 20 people to death?

When was the last time a school could defend itself?  guns will always be present everywhere.  we can't go back and UN-invent firearms.  I also do not trust the police or a government to defend me against intrusions and muggings.

[cae]

The 2nd amendment needs to be updated for the modern world. When the law was written the most advanced technology out there was the musket and the cannon, and the idea was to have an equally well-armed citizenry to guard against a standing army. Source: The Federalist Papers No. 29

 

If that idea was upheld today, that would mean I would have the right to own not just assault rifles but also unmanned drones.

 

Which is sort of ridiculous... right?

 

The law needs to adapt, making decisions on technology the original authors could never have conceived. Otherwise we end up with heated debate over the topic of gun ownership.

 

It's ridiculous that we let it get so far - to have our government using drones. Following the papers would have us in revolution now, if not long before many of our wars. I believe the rights were outlined to be basic, so that they may account for technology not conceived in their time. The right to self defense, and its implements shall not be infringed. If I'm getting drone'd, I'd certainly want something to protect against them.

[Art Vandelay]

 

I'm for guns, but isn't a tazer gun enough for protection?

A TASER is not really something to use against lethal force. If someone pulls a gun on you, a TASER's not gonna stop them. If someone pulls a knife on you, a TASER might not even stop them.

 

http://youtu.be/yXIRHVrMPho?t=28m9s

[cae]

Multiple shot tazers have their own share of problems. There was this one case where the tazer blew and didn't work on the 2nd shot because the battery malfunctioned. 

 

And for the protection they provide, they aren't priced very well. TASER C2: $300-$400 or Kel-Tec PF-9: $333

[Victorious Secret]

I'm not really pro or anti in the sense that I feel compelled to justify my side's actions. 

 

I just know that this gives me a funny feeling because it looks so cool:

 

 

Now, if the discussion is about gun control, let me put on the psychobabbler hat that my degree allows me to have and say this:

 

Taking away guns might not solve anything. Regulating the hell out of guns only hurts those that were following your laws already (aka, criminals don't care and aren't unduly hindered). There are deeper issues (especially in America) w.r.t. mental health/general health and the pervasive defence of a Amendment right. 

 

I'll just say this, in Switzerland almost every house has a government issued assault rifle, yet they don't go batshit crazy every other weekend. So what are we doing wrong that this is always an issue? 

[AlwaysFSX]

I'm for guns, but isn't a tazer gun enough for protection?

And if you miss you're dead.

[wpirobotbuilder]

It's ridiculous that we let it get so far - to have our government using drones. Following the papers would have us in revolution now, if not long before many of our wars. I believe the rights were outlined to be basic, so that they may account for technology not conceived in their time. The right to self defense, and its implements shall not be infringed. If I'm getting drone'd, I'd certainly want something to protect against them.

Except that Alexander Hamilton, who made that statement that became the 2nd amendment, was a huge proponent of strong government. So Hamilton might not agree with you.

 

 

I'll just say this, in Switzerland almost every house has a government issued assault rifle, yet they don't go batshit crazy every other weekend. So what are we doing wrong that this is always an issue? 

Guns aren't the problem; we are. Also, that GIF is cool

[cae]

Except that Alexander Hamilton, who made that statement that became the 2nd amendment, was a huge proponent of strong government. So Hamilton might not agree with you.

 

There might be a distinction between a strong government and one using its own standing army against the people.

[CJPowell27]

I support the right to have guns and those rights shouldn't be infringed.  

I'm actually doing my speech this year on this topic.  While I was doing

my research, I came across some video of a comedian interviewing 

pro-gun control picketers; they were blaming a recent shooting on the

NRA and were protesting outside of their headquarters.  While interviewing 

one of the protesters he asked if they knew how many killings and crimes

were committed with knives rather than guns.  The person did not know,

so he told them.  The protester was surprised and he sarcastically

said "Being that there are more knife killings than gun killings, there

should be knife control."

 

Moral of the story, there's always going to be something being blamed

for the actions of criminals. 

[nicehat]

There might be a distinction between a strong government and one using its own standing army against the people.

 

you think our govt is going to turn against its own people? Jeez; Is that what this is about now? btw, the best gun you can possibly buy wont do anything against a government drone. The govt is not coming after you, put down the pitchforks. I mean shotguns.

[Guest]

you think our govt is going to turn against its own people? 

Perhaps your familiar with that little spat we call the revolutionary war. Not to mention the Scottish revolution, French revolution...

[wpirobotbuilder]

There might be a distinction between a strong government and one using its own standing army against the people.

That is true. Which is why I was trying to make the point that our only realistic option is to update the law. It's preposterous to consider human beings owning armed drones or stealth planes, or that we should just give up developing new technology for military use.

[CJPowell27]

[Art Vandelay]

And for the protection they provide, they aren't priced very well. TASER C2: $300-$400 or Kel-Tec PF-9: $333

The Hipoint C9 is only $190 and is pretty decent as far as I can tell.