Gun Control (again)

[DEFkon]

and the other question that comes to mind is: How many times have you been "mugged"? I tend to think that most Americans, espically the "I needs PROTECTION!" advocates have a seriously distorted view of reality within in terms of threats to their mortality. I wonder how many of them also "protect" themselves from the more likely killers such as smoking, cholesterol, STD, automobile accident, ect.

 

[Phyphor]

In addition, if you really are that afraid of being carjacked, robbed, invated, etc, why not choose something non-lethal, such as a long-range taser?

Because ammo tends to last longer than batteries, when stored.

Seriously, tasers can kill just as easily as guns can... think about if the perp has a heart problem and you hit him in the chest. Not to mention, whaddya do if you taze the guy and he gets back up? Tasers aren't the 100% solution some make them out to be, which is why police here also carry guns.

Why can't Americans choose something else to compensate with?

Maybe because we recognize the reality of the situation. If we got rid of all our guns, what's to stop them from being smuggled in across our borders? The only ones to have guns would be criminals, then....

What's so wrong with personal firearms ownership? No matter what the reason? (Provided the reason is legal. )

 

[Arethusa]

and the other question that comes to mind is: How many times have you been "mugged"? I tend to think that most Americans, espically the "I needs PROTECTION!" advocates have a seriously distorted view of reality within in terms of threats to their mortality. I wonder how many of them also "protect" themselves from the more likely killers such as smoking, cholesterol, STD, automobile accident, ect.

I have never been mugged. And if I carried a weapon, I would not carry one out of fear of being mugged. That is not to say it is not a realistic possibility. It happens, and it happens a lot. But I view carrying a weapon as an extension of capability. You never know what will happen to you, and you don't carry a weapon for the hundreds of potentially life threatening or extreme situations you can imagine. You carry it for the one you can't.

 

[Bushwack]

A certain number of the population is also immune to tazers, so today, guns are the most effective people stoppers, so that's what I'll use.

Your confusing TASER and STUNGUN, Stunguns have a number of people who are either through natural resistance to electrical current, or via pain tolerance are immune to them.
TASERS however do not work on whats known as 'pain compliance', which is the principal stunguns were designed for.
Tasers bypass the bodys ability to control its muscles, via electrical current {the TASER International model was recently upgraded to 19 pulses per millisecond}, this means that when shot with a Taser, providing BOTH prongs make contact with the assailants body, they will no longer have control over thier faculties, AT ALL, there is noone immune to this, no matter what they are on {drugs} or how tough they are or tolerant of pain, it works on a totally different set of principals.

http://www.taser.com/index.htm

http://www.taser.com/facts/index.htm

Now, having stated this, i will tell you i have been voluntarily Tased, but before you say "ok, so what", you must know, im heavily tattooed, and have a SERIOUSLY high pain tolerance, stun guns and mace DO NOT work on me {neither will a 2X4 board}, the TASER, for lack of better terminology, almost made me scream like a schoolgirl. I got hit, I immediately wanted it OFF, but could do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about getting the darts/clips off of or out of me,{this being the last thing on my mind once the current hit me, foremost in thought being OMFG THIS SUCKS/WTF WAS I THINKING/OUCH!!!!!!!} for the duration of the programmed charge time. Once the Taser was discharged and reset, I was helped up, and immediately fine and OK, other than feeling a bit strange and slightly disoriented.
This was done, at my request, at a police station, where 5eleven is a Captain, his seargant administered the shock to me while he witnessed {and laughed} this event.

The Pros for a Taser type device as far as LEO goes are:

-Ease of training officers to use it {it is same size shape and demeanor as thier service guns}

-nonlethality {also debateable currently}

-it works on EVERYONE without exception

-Tasers do not affect people with heart problems or pacemakers

-its reloadable in the field

-it has a chip inside it that can download for legal documentation how long and how often it was discharged { AFIDtags and chips}

-it will bring about an INCREASE in compliance after a period of time noone argues much who has felt its effects

-it suprisingly can be used constantly, shock after shock until backup or help arrives {roughly 30 minutes continuous use, adding that having felt it, 30 minutes would reduce anyone to a blubbering pile of MOMMY MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP}

-even unloaded, probes in an assailant, you ahve the ability to shock stun {read just like a stungun} someone else with the front of the taser

its CONS are for LEO/Civvy use:

-it has a low range {roughly 10-25 feet with any standard of accuracy}

-it isnt as fast to reload as a real firearm, nor can it engaged multiple assailants easily

-one shot, the darts stay in one guy, you have to manually take out the cartridge attached to the barrel fo the taser rendering the darts in your first assailant useless, load new cartridge, then shoot other assailants/repeat

-even a one shot pistol is faster to reload and a more effective deterrent.

-its nonlethal

-while still being a deterrent after its discharged, i wouldnt be willing with multiple attackers to let them close enough to manually stun them with the foreend of the taser {close enough for this, close enough for them to knife/grapple/injure me}

Every system for personal defence has its good and bad points, no ONE thing can work for everyone or forevery situation.

I was reading a news article the other night about how the Police in Britain are having to take crash courses in Martial Arts because apparently they are getting thier collective asses handed to them on a regular basis while in the line of duty, I'd rather have a firearm, and that not allowed, in its place a Taser type deterrent, to put some distance between 'them' and 'me' in the situation where my life or the life of my family was in danger.

Just my 2 cents. on the subject of Tasers/stunguns, I'd prefer not to get embroiled in the debate regarding firearms ownership/legality.

BW.

 

[5eleven]

Gah. I can't believe I'm entering this, however, let me set the record straight, not from videos or supposition, but from real experience:

I have been shot with a Taser multiple times, and yes, they do work. I am specifically reffering to the X26 TASER from TASER International. The XP cartridge (you'll know it when you watch COPS because it's the yellow cartridge, is an eXtra Penetrating cartridge. A little more "oomph" to penetrate heavier clothing. Two barbs, and it extends a maximum of 21 feet.
BTW, impress your friends: TASER is for Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle.

A TASER fires with an initial delivered shock of 5 second duration. If the trigger is held down, it will continue to deliver the shock until the trigger is released. Shorter durations are possible by interrupting the cycle by flipping the safety back on. Each time the trigger is pulled, it delivers 50,000 volts for 5 seconds. In the case of multiple attackers, you probably don't want to release the cartridge and insert another. What you would generally do is make physical contact with the end of the TASER and deliver another shock. This is known as a drive stun. Same effect, but as an added bonus, the first assailant that you shot with the probes will also get another ride. If you release the cartridge, assailant #1 will recover and may attack again.

Recovery time is darn near instantaneous. Remember, the TASER works on disrupting electrical current in the body. It hurts like hell and contracts virtually every muscle in your body. After multiple hits, you feel like you just sprinted a mile and a half. It just drains you.

As far as a certain population being impervious to the TASER application, that's like saying a certain population is impervious to lightning strikes. Maybe so, but I haven't met one yet. Most of the people that you see on video fighting through a TASER hit are due to a lack of appropriate penetration. Believe me, you cannot fight through a TASER hit, at least not while you are getting hit. Not possible.

OC spray? Yes, entirely possible, and I would venture to guess I've been pepper sprayed about 15 - 20 times. You can still fight and function through pepper spray, and I have sprayed people that it had little to no effect. But if I had a choice, I'd rather be shot with the TASER. Hurts worse, but once it's over, it's over. It doesn't last for twenty minutes and there's no decontamination time.

As far as self defense against someone with a weapon, maybe. But remember, you've got to do something once they are incapacitated. It doesn't last forever. And eventually the TASER batteries wear down.

If up against someone with a firearm in my line of work, IF a TASER is employed, it is only done so with lethal force backup, period. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Having said all that, I'm a firm believer in personal ownership of firearms. You guys can debate what you would do, or what's right or not. But I'm telling you from personal experience. When a psychotic, drunk, angry, 240 lb man forcibly breaks through two doors in your home, knowing that you are there, and says that he is going to kill you, the mere presence of a firearm pointed at his head can force a retreat. You protect your life and your property, and pray to God that you don't have to fire a shot. Thank God I didn't. Don't make the assumption that all Americans, specifically gun owners are bloodlusting cowboys, praying for someone to break in while hunkering in a corner with a steel pot, a loaded Mossberg, a .44 magnum and a throw down .38 snub.

BTW, it's Less Lethal, not Less than Lethal. Many products that are intended to cause death, can, if used improperly. A 12 gauge beanbag round to the head or center mass, although not a bullet, may kill you.

 

[Rostam]

Rostam, when was the last time you saw an inanimate object kill someone? Like a hammer jumping up and whacking some guy to death? An outside influence is required to make a weapon do harm. The person holding it.

So you really don't think that maybe it is both the person holding it and the weapon used? Because just to turn it around, I don't remember the last time when people pulled their finger and people died. It required 2 things, well 3 actually. A gunner, a gun, and victim.

America was founded on these natural rights. Of course guns are going to be common here. Guns will be common in a free society. If guns are not common because of regulation by government, your society is not free, for your government seeks to deny your natural rights.

No, no no no no. When a goverment seeks to deny you from carrying a gun with you outside, it is because they have monopoly on violence. And since it is a democracy, I really don't see the 'you're not free' argument.

The freedom there is to be able to actually defend yourself, and not have to pray that there's a cop close enough to hear your screams.

Again, protect you from what exactly?

 

[CFA]

its scientificly proven that guns do not kill people, people kill people.no matter what, if someone wants to hurt someone else, they are going to do it.rather it be with a gun or a toothpick,they are gonna do it.point your hatred towards the people who feel they can do whatever they want including take someone elses life(s).it leads to one thing, death. if it kills, these people will do it, no matter what it takes.

this would be the reason for war this day and age.people waving around their nukes making threats,etc.the reason there is so many guns is because of people like this. some carry them to protect themselves from these people,other carry them because they are these people,and even more carry them to stop these people.when this world stops thinking about "rights" and "laws" and start kicking ass instead of slapping wrists, maybe some things will get done.until then, a single (or multiple) murder does not yield enough punishment.people who do these things deem these consequences "petty and worthwhile"

 

[mbs357]

For a taser to work, two prongs have to make contact with the target? So what if one misses or doesn't attatch? Hasn't there been issues with suspects wearing thick clothing and not being effected? If you miss with a gun, shoot again, the tazers have to be reloaded after every shot.
I don't have guns because I'm afraid of being mugged/robbed, I have them in case I'm mugged/robbed. If I was afraied of being mugged or robbed I wouldn't go outside.
And I second the 'nothing is non lethal' statement.

 

[5eleven]

Yes, both probes must make contact, and essentially, complete the circuit. And yes, as I elaborated earlier, many that you see that fight through or seem to have no effect are due to an "incomplete circuit".

However, they do not have to penetrate completely through clothing. They will work if within a certain distance from the skin - basically it will arc if close enough. It has been my experience that this is simply a reduced effect, if any effect at all. While they will not completely penetrate soft body armor, they will penetrate enough, the manufacturer says, to complete the circuit and work. I also alluded to the XP cartridge, which will penetrate even heavy coats.

Oh yeah, the probes also spread when fired. You get a much greater effect the greater the spread. In training, we sometimes use a nonfiring cartridge that has two leads attached, and alligator clips at the end. (The same way Bushwack got hammered). Just for fun, we'll attach one clip to the shirt at the top of the right shoulder and the other to the ankle area of the left sock. I didn't know people could get in the fetal position backwards.

Besides, I think you are missing the point: The TASER was brought up because it's a less lethal alternative. And yes, you can reload a new cartridge, or just drive stun them in the neck. That's pretty effective as well.

 

[ant75]

I'm going to try to explain this as best I can. Please try to follow the logic, whether you agree with it or not:

Human beings, just like any other living sentient creature, have free will. Due to this free will, there are certain natural laws and rights.

All creatures have the right to protect their own life. If a Zebra is attacked by a lion does he not have the right to flee or kick with his hooves to protect himself? All creatures have the right to protect their property. If one bear tries to force another bear from his cave during winter, doesn't the first bear have the right to defend his home? Being ejected from his home could be fatal if he were to be unable to find shelter from the elements.

If animals have these natural rights, do not humans also have them? Of course we do.

Guns are irrelevant. Humans have the natural right to protect their own lives. If guns did not exist, we would still possess this right. The fact that guns do exist does not supersede or override this right.

I'm sure most of you understand "disparity of force". If you are attacked, the force you use to defend yourself must be in proportion to the force used to attack you. If it's not, you'll lose. In the example above of the lion attacking the zebra, the zebra is probably going to die because of disparity of force. He's "outgunned" so to speak.

Now, we've established that we as human beings and natural creatures have the right to defend our lives. If while walking to the store, I might be attacked by a man wielding a gun, in the interest of self preservation, should I not use equal arms to defend myself? Of course I should. If I do not, I will probably fail to protect myself.

We as humans are social creatures and we live in complex societies with sometimes complex laws. But regardless of the complexities of our laws or societies, natural laws and rights still exist. It's not possible for them not to exist.

Society's laws cannot protect your life. They can influence your environment, but they cannot protect you. The police are plentiful enough to only do the same. Police can influence your environment, but it's highly unlikely they will be present if and when your life is threatened. Therefore your well being is your responsibility and yours alone.

So, if a man has a right and responsibility to protect his own life, and use adequate force to do so, he must have access to the same arms that his adversary has access to if he expects to succeed.

I know some of you contend that guns can be taken out of the equation by laws. This is a fantasy. Of course the number of arms can be reduced by regulation. But firearms use too simple of technology to be removed from society completely. Furthermore, even when laws do regulate firearms, the government always retains them. How can a man exercise his natural right to self preservation if his adversary is a tyrant? (the Jews and Hitler?)

America was founded on these natural rights. Of course guns are going to be common here. Guns will be common in a free society. If guns are not common because of regulation by government, your society is not free, for your government seeks to deny your natural rights.


Edited due to numerous spelling mistakes.

When people want to justify their right to bear firearms with pragmatic arguments, like "the police can't be everywhere, i want to be able to protect my home by myself", i can understand it, even if i disagree. But to try to justify the freedom to bear guns with a pseudo-philosophical speech like this one is seriously questionnable. This debate (as any philosophical one) could be endless so i'll try to be short. First off, you seem to base your whole reasoning on philosophical concepts you don't seem to master entirely, or that are much more complex that what you wanna make them out to be. Concepts such as "natural rights" or "freedom", which you seem to conveniently use as facts, could indeed be heavily discussed. For example, one may argue that there's no such things as natural rights. "Rights", like laws, are concepts : they don't exist prior to when somebody makes up a term for it. They're not "natural" as in "prior to intellectual theorization". You won't find somewhere, hidden in the ground, some kind of tables of the Law establishing that every living being has the right to defend itself. The only way to support such an idea would be to postulate God's existence (and since America was founded upon religious principles, i guess that coincides). I could say as much about your idea of freedom : what is freedom exactly ? As said by rostam, the base principle for every government is the monopoly of violence, therefore, once you're a citizen of any country, you're already deprived of at least ONE but essential freedom. The only way to have a freedom such as the one you seem to dream of would be to live in anarchy. But that would only mean a theoretical or formal freedom, because then all metaphysical questions about the definition of freedom would still be unanswered. Also, semantic comments aside, there are some occasional incoherences in your rhetoric, as it has already been partly pointed out by phoenix.

 

[Derelan]

I'm not trying to say that guns should be made illegal, I definately believe they shouldn't. I'm trying to figure out how USA manages to have the most gun-related deaths in the world, without even having the greatest gun-to-person ration in the world! And by what this thread has shown, it seems to be that people are afriad, worried, or have it sitting in the back of their mind that they are going to get attacked. But being attacked is quite an unlikely cause of death compared to preventable risks that we take every day.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

I've heard that before. You know, things are going great in Afghanistan. Everything's fine in Iraq. We're winning and everything should be wrapped up any time soon.

I knew someone would say that, but it of no relevance. It isn't the full force of the US army, because there are civilians and america doesn't want to kill lots of them.

However, if you are trying to attack civilians you can do what the hell you like, bomb the hell outta them...no comparison really.


BTW why has all the focus been on tazers? how hard would it really be to come up with a dart gun that could knock people out???

 

[Rostam]

america doesn't want to kill lots of them.

Yeah just a few thousand.
But that is another topic

 

[DEFkon]

Well the only problem with the argument of a goverment directly attacking the general population is that it's detrimental in the long run. If your talking about the US military vs the US public, then it's like a snake trying to eat itself. Most of the factories, farms, ect that provide the military with supplies are not military, nor does the goverment have enough people to simply "take them over". Granted the devistation would be massive but it'd be a completely hollow victory. Not to mention that the level of genocide, combined with the advanced communications available would most certainly make the attrocity front page news across the globe, and i'd bet some group of nations would intervien if not for the humanitarian reasons than use it as a ruse for occupation. I somehow get the feeling that China, North Korea, ect would love to "liberate" some states from the oppression of a goverment gone wild. ;p

 

[Phyphor]

I knew someone would say that, but it of no relevance. It isn't the full force of the US army, because there are civilians and america doesn't want to kill lots of them.

However, if you are trying to attack civilians you can do what the hell you like, bomb the hell outta them...no comparison really.


BTW why has all the focus been on tazers? how hard would it really be to come up with a dart gun that could knock people out???

Bad things about this: What about adverse drug reactions to the knockout agent? What about maiming (say, you hit the perp in the eye with it,) the perp? What if you miss and hit someone else?

There's no perfect solution to self defense....

 

[5eleven]

BTW why has all the focus been on tazers? how hard would it really be to come up with a dart gun that could knock people out???

TASER was just brought up as an alternative. People made some comments about them, and I tried to set the record straight. At this point, that about sums up my level of participation in this thread.

 

[TheShiningWizard]

BTW why has all the focus been on tazers? how hard would it really be to come up with a dart gun that could knock people out???

I've not heard of a chemical that is capable of quickly incapacitating a 300lbs man, and yet won't kill (via OD) a 160lbs man or 120lbs woman.

 

[5eleven]

Didn't Russia try some "knockout gas" during that standoff at that theater? Oh yeah, that's right, it just killed everyone.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

Bad things about this: What about adverse drug reactions to the knockout agent? What about maiming (say, you hit the perp in the eye with it,) the perp? What if you miss and hit someone else?

There's no perfect solution to self defense....

No perfect solution, no, but I think if money was put into it something alot better than guns could be invented.

TASER was just brought up as an alternative.

Yea, by me, but i suggested dart guns at the same time, which is why i mentioned it again.

And what does the russian gas thing have to do with anything other than the obvious nothing?

 

[5eleven]

I guess the TASER comments popped out at me, since I have a fair amount of experience with them. I have no experience with dart guns.

My comments about the Russian theater incident was sort of humor, sans smilies. Here, I'll walk you through it:

BTW why has all the focus been on tazers? how hard would it really be to come up with a dart gun that could knock people out???

Then TSW responded to that with:

I've not heard of a chemical that is capable of quickly incapacitating a 300lbs man, and yet won't kill (via OD) a 160lbs man or 120lbs woman.

Then,

Didn't Russia try some "knockout gas" during that standoff at that theater? Oh yeah, that's right, it just killed everyone.

See, TSW explained that a chemical won't generally incapacitate a larger person without killing a smaller person. The humor part was that I was referring to the Russians using a chemical that obviously didn't affect everyone similarly, and they ended up with a massacre on their hands. I emboldened the parts that I thought might help bring it all together for you.